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 states the return type ('matching notes with summaries') and adds critical context about the knowledge base's grounding in pinned repository files and the need to cite permalinks. However, it does not explain query semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, fuzzy matching) or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct role: purpose, usage, return behavior, data provenance, and citation requirement. It is slightly longer than necessary but all content earns its place, so a 4 is suitable.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the key contextual elements: what it searches, what it returns (summaries), how to proceed (get_note), and why results are reliable (SHA-pinned sources). It does not describe pagination/sorting, but the limit parameter schema covers the former. A 4 reflects solid coverage without being exhaustive.

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 the schema already fully describes all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning for the query parameter ('topic rather than a note id') but does not enhance the type or limit parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across the DPC Zettelkasten.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating 'Start here when you have a topic rather than a note id' and explicitly naming get_note as the follow-up tool, making the differentiation explicit.

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 ('Start here when you have a topic rather than a note id') and names an alternative (get_note) with follow-up direction. It also sets expectations for how to use the results (cite sources), which is actionable guidance for the agent.

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