search-notes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions search type (semantic/full-text) and an optional filter, but omits details like whether this is read-only, how results are ordered, pagination behavior, or content indexing status. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and one key option. Every word contributes meaning. No redundancy or excess.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, what 'semantic' search entails, or potential limitations. For a search tool with multiple siblings, more context is needed for effective selection and use.

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 67% (query lacks description). The description adds 'Optionally filter by folder path' which echoes the schema. It does not clarify the query parameter's syntax or semantics, nor does it explain limit behavior beyond the schema's default. Overall minimal added value 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 'Semantic and full-text search over notes' clearly identifies the tool's action (search) and resource (notes), and the optional folder path filter adds specificity. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list-notes and get-note by emphasizing content-based search.

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 states the tool's capabilities but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives. No mention of when-not-to-use or suggestions for other tools like list-notes for browsing or get-note for a specific note.

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