search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it searches notes with regex, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose that it defaults to markdown files, uses ripgrep, or how results/context lines are returned. The schema provides parameter defaults but the description itself adds no behavioral detail beyond what the tool name suggests.

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 sentence with zero filler words. It front-loads the primary purpose (search notes) and the method (regex) without redundant qualifications. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Even though the schema is rich with six parameters and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding when to invoke this tool. It lacks usage guidance, alternative routing, and behavioral transparency beyond the literal action. The description's brevity means the agent must infer context from the tool name and schema alone, which is insufficient for a tool with multiple sibling search/list options.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'regex' aligns with the pattern parameter and adds a small semantic cue, but it does not elaborate on path, glob_pattern, max_results, or case_sensitive. Since the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, the description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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 states a specific action (search), resource (notes in the Obsidian vault), and method (regex), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like read_note, write_note, and list_notes by its focus on searching, and from search_frontmatter by the general 'notes' target. The phrasing 'using regex' adds precision beyond the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_frontmatter, which searches only frontmatter, or list_notes for enumeration. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases. The only hint is the tool name and the one-line description, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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