Find keywords across recorded transcripts, event summaries, and quick notes, returning matching sentences with event IDs and related events. Chinese queries need at least three characters.
在全部原文、事件摘要、随口记里搜关键词（中文至少 3 个字，按原话匹配）。返回命中的句子（带所属事件 ID）和事件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral traits: Chinese queries require at least 3 characters, and matching is against 原话 (literal substring, not semantic). It also reveals the return shape (sentences plus owning event IDs). However it says nothing about whether start/end bound the search, how limit truncates results, or ranking/ordering of hits.
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?
Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the search scope, then the constraint and the return format. Every phrase adds information and nothing is padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description redundantly does so. But with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the missing semantics for start/end/limit leave an agent unable to narrow results by date or control result volume — a real functional gap for a search tool defaulting to 30 hits.
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, and it only covers 'query' (keyword, ≥3 Chinese chars, literal match). The three optional parameters — start, end, and limit (default 30) — are never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell from either the schema or the description whether start/end are date bounds and how they interact with the query. This is a substantial gap over a 4-parameter tool.
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 names a specific verb (搜关键词) and enumerates the exact corpora searched (全部原文、事件摘要、随口记), plus what comes back (命中句子带事件 ID 和事件). The generic name 'search' is rescued by this detail, and it is clearly the only keyword-search tool among list_/get_ siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this to find content by keyword' versus the list_/get_ siblings that enumerate or fetch by ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of alternatives such as browsing via list_records or day_summary. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.