search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits: 'semantically' indicates non-keyword matching, 'indexed' signals a prerequisite, and 'cited passages' suggests the response shape. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, failure modes, or dependence on the index freshness.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core action, resource, and result in a compact, readable form.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description conveys the core function but misses important context: no usage differentiation from siblings, no parameter semantics, and no safety/side-effect disclosure. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to navigate reliably.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the format or scope of 'query' beyond implying semantic search, nor does it describe how 'top_k' affects results or any bounds. The parameter names are self-evident but the description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('search'), a clear resource ('indexed Obsidian notes'), and the output ('cited passages'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings read_note and vault_status by its search and retrieval focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus read_note or vault_status. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when a semantic search is appropriate.

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