search_notes

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

There are no annotations to lean on, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavior: results are relevance-ordered, returned as chunks with file path and line range, and not merely a list of file names. It does not mention side effects, but 'search' strongly implies read-only, and no contradiction exists.

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 two tight sentences, with the verb and scope front-loaded and the return behavior stated in a single clause. The extra 'not just a bag of file names' earns its place by highlighting the key differentiator.

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?

The core purpose and return shape are present, and an output schema exists for detailed return fields, so this is viable. However, there is no guidance on path_prefix semantics or when to prefer ask_notes, and with 0% schema descriptions the agent must infer too much for a tool with three parameters.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining query, top_k, or path_prefix. 'Top matching chunks' implies the role of top_k and query, but path_prefix is undocumented, and the phrase 'across everything indexed so far' obscures the fact that path_prefix can scope the search.

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 ('semantic search') over a defined corpus ('everything indexed so far') and goes on to describe the return granularity (matching chunks with file path, line range, and snippet). This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling tools index_directory, list_indexed_files, ask_notes, and remove_directory.

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 use when the agent needs semantic retrieval of relevant chunks, rather than file listing or Q&A, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over ask_notes or how path_prefix narrows the search. Usage context is clear, but exclusions and alternative routing are left to inference.

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