search

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It details full-text search behavior (token-AND with OR fallback, typo correction), pagination (cursor/truncated/nextCursor, stale cursor errors), response flags (incomplete, skipped), and folder exclusions (includeOperational). This exceeds typical expectations.

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 efficient and well-organized. It starts with the core purpose ('Find notes.'), then systematically enumerates actions with their specific settings. Every sentence provides distinct information without redundancy, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, 5 actions, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers behavior, error conditions, and parameter groupings. It lacks a detailed specification of the response structure (e.g., fields in item objects), but the format parameter and mention of 'compact for index-only results' partially compensate. Overall, it is stronger than typical descriptions.

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%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds significant cross-parameter context (e.g., which actions use which parameters), behavioral details (e.g., stale cursor error), and usage constraints (e.g., 'accepts no other arguments' for tags action). This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool finds notes and lists multiple distinct actions (content, by_tags, list, recent, tags), each with a specific purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools (graph, note, vault) by focusing on search and enumeration operations.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each action (e.g., 'prefer 2-3 keywords' for content, 'frontmatter tag filter (AND)' for by_tags). It also explains cursor handling and error cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives among sibling tools, but the context makes it clear that search is for finding notes while graph is for relationships and vault for vault-level operations.

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