Run Dataview Table Query

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by mentioning plugin prerequisites and vault resolution semantics. However, it claims an explicit `vaultPath` argument 'always wins,' but that parameter is absent from the input schema and additionalProperties is false. This is a misleading behavioral claim that an agent cannot actually act on, which undermines transparency.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the operation, the second gives the use case, the third gives prerequisites, and the final paragraph explains vault behavior. The vaultPath sentence is somewhat misleading and the vault.current/vault.select references add a small distraction, but overall the structure is compact and readable.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, prerequisites, vault resolution, and structured output, and the output schema plus annotations handle return values and safety. However, it leaves the vaultPath mismatch unresolved and does not clarify what happens when `fromClause` is omitted, which is relevant for correct invocation. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all real parameters; the description only restates that WHERE, SORT, and LIMIT are optional, adding no new meaning. Worse, it introduces a phantom `vaultPath` parameter not present in the schema, actively confusing parameter expectations. This is a net negative beyond the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('runs') and names the exact DQL TABLE form it wraps. It also explicitly says 'structured columnar output,' which differentiates this tool from list-oriented siblings like dataview.listByTag and dataview.listByFolder. This is a clear, distinguishing statement of purpose.

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?

It gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this when you need structured columnar output.' It also notes a prerequisite (Dataview and Local REST API plugins), which is useful for pre-call checks. However, it never names alternatives or explains when to prefer dataview.query or listByTag, so exclusions are left implied rather than stated.

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