Noteastic-Bibliothek durchsuchen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the search scope (only folder and notebook names) and a notable limitation (handwritten page contents are not searchable without OCR). This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not describe return format or read-only behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action ('Searches folder and notebook names') is front-loaded, and the limitation is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 one-parameter search without an output schema, the description adequately explains what is searched and a key limitation. It could be more complete by describing the result payload (e.g., list of matching items), but the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present.

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 100% with the query parameter described as 'Suchbegriff', so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the query matches folder and notebook names, giving the parameter concrete meaning beyond the generic schema label.

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 ('Durchsucht') and resource ('Ordner- und Notizbuchnamen'), making it clear this tool searches folder and notebook names. It also clarifies the scope by excluding handwritten page content without OCR, which distinguishes it from a generic library search despite not naming sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool (to search library folder and notebook names) and provides a limitation (handwritten content is not searchable without OCR). However, it does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools like list_library or get_notebook, nor does it state when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives.

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