wiz_search_notes

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns full notes, snippets, or supports pagination. The schema hints at pagination via count and start, but these are not explained.

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 short and concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It could have added parameter or behavior explanation without much length increase.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for proper tool understanding. It lacks explanation of pagination, return format, and the effect of optional parameters like kbGuid.

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 0%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. While 'query' is self-explanatory, 'count', 'start', and 'kbGuid' are undocumented, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'notes' in a specific context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, list, get, and update. However, it lacks specificity on search type (e.g., full-text, title).

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?

No guidance on when to use search versus sibling tools like wiz_list_notes or wiz_get_note. Without exclusions, the agent may misuse it for simple listing or retrieval.

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