search

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavior: the exact shape of each result (path, heading path, line, short snippet), the fact that document `tags`/`description` accompany results, the ranked/section-vs-document mode change based on whether `query` is supplied, and the notable fact that it 'also works when TrailMark is closed, from the project's files.'

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then usage, then the large-project strategy — a sensible order with little waste. Slightly over-long, and the `query`/`tags` mode rule is restated in the schema, so one sentence is partly redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return payload (ranked sections with path, heading path, line, snippet, plus document tags/description) and the alternate return when `tags` is used without `query`. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret the result is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between `query` and `tags` (omitting `query` converts the call from a section search into a document listing) and by recommending `tags` as the narrowing step in large projects.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Find where something is described in the project's Markdown documents' — and immediately characterizes the return as ranked matching sections. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the job as locating documentation 'before reading whole files,' positioning it against read_note/open.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('to locate documentation before reading whole files, for example to find the section that defines a term or a decision'), a concrete narrowing strategy for large projects, and names the sibling `list_tags` as the prerequisite for the tags path. It also states the mode switch: leave `query` out when passing `tags` to list documents instead of sections.

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