Read Dataview Fields

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the exact semantics of `extract` (combining page, list-item, and task-line fields) and `search` (coercion via `valueType`, scope restrictions). It also discloses the vault selection rule (`vaultPath` always wins), which is not derivable from the schema alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense but logically structured: it opens with the core purpose, then details each operation, then addresses read-only status and vault selection. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two operation modes, optional parameters), the description covers all necessary invocation details: the meaning of both ops, the role of `scope`, the vault selection mechanism, and the pointer to the write counterpart. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself provides descriptions for `key`, `scope`, and `valueType`, so the parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact across the two `op` variants (e.g., `extract` requires `filePath`, `search` requires `key` and optional `value`/`valueType`). This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource (Dataview fields) and the two distinct operations (`extract` and `search`) with precise scoping. It differentiates from the sibling `dataview.fields.write` by explicitly labeling itself read-only, so an agent can immediately tell which tool handles mutation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a direct pointer to the alternative (`For mutating fields, use dataview.fields.write`) and explains when to use each operation: `extract` for a single note, `search` for whole-vault matching. It also clarifies the `vaultPath` precedence rule, which is essential for correct invocation in multi-vault sessions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.