roam_search_by_text

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds a meaningful behavioral note: graph conventions affect how results are read, not just written, implying results can vary between graphs. It also mentions pagination support, though the schema already documents limit/offset.

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 compact: two sentences covering core functionality and a one-sentence important note. It front-loads the primary purpose, explains the alternate scope, then delivers the essential prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place without fluff 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?

With 8 parameters but only 1 required, full schema coverage, and complete annotations, the description adds the crucial missing context: a session-level prerequisite to call roam_get_guidelines because conventions affect reads. The namespace prefix example clarifies a non-obvious mode. No output schema exists, but the return value for a block/page search tool is self-evident.

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% for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mentions of `scope: 'page_titles'`, the namespace prefix example, and pagination via `limit`/`offset` all reinforce but do not add substantive meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 opens with 'Search for blocks containing specific text across all pages or within a specific page,' a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the free-text blocks search from the namespace-prefix page_titles mode, and the availability of these two modes helps set it apart from sibling search tools like roam_search_for_tag or roam_search_by_status.

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 clear usage context: it tells the agent to use scope 'page_titles' for namespace prefix searches and includes an 'IMPORTANT' instruction to call roam_get_guidelines once per session because conventions change how results are read. It lacks explicit exclusions or direct references to sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide appropriate selection.

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