search_vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by disclosing that the search covers title, tags, and AI takeaway. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only and has no side effects, which would be expected for a search tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It presents the core action and scope immediately, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 search tool, the description and schema together provide adequate context. The description clearly defines the search target and fields, while the schema covers the parameters. However, because there is no output schema, the description could be slightly more complete by mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., a list of matching bookmarks), but this is a minor omission.

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 100% for both parameters (query and limit), so the schema already explains them. The description adds marginal value by indicating what fields the keyword searches, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search') on a specific resource ('your Burn Vault for bookmarks') with clear scope ('by keyword (searches title, tags, AI takeaway)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_sparks by explicitly targeting bookmarks in the Burn Vault.

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 the tool is for searching bookmarks by keyword, which is clear, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_sparks or list_vault, nor does it mention exclusions or contexts. No usage guidance beyond the core purpose.

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