Roam Research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions searching but doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs (implied by write_key parameter but not explained), or what happens with invalid inputs. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key capability (searching up or down). There is zero waste, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function without unnecessary details.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like mutability or side effects. For a search tool with multiple optional parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as clarifying the relationship between parent_uid and child_uid or how max_depth interacts with search direction. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool searches for parent or child blocks in the block hierarchy, specifying direction (up or down) from a given block. It distinguishes from siblings like roam_search_by_text or roam_search_for_tag by focusing on hierarchical relationships rather than content-based searches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from roam_fetch_block_with_children, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage context by stating it searches 'from a given block' and can go 'up or down the hierarchy,' suggesting when to use it versus content-based search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as roam_fetch_block_with_children for child retrieval, leaving some ambiguity.

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