search_wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the search is case-insensitive and covers both full-text and filename, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't clarify return format, ranking, or sorting despite an output schema existing. A 3 is appropriate since annotations carry the safety disclosure and the description adds modest context.

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, tightly-worded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the scope (vault's markdown notes), behavior (case-insensitive), and coverage (full-text + filename) economically. This is appropriately concise for front-loading key information.

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 search tool with a clear query param, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is reasonably complete. Though it doesn't mention pagination, ranking, or wildcard support, an output schema exists and the annotations cover safety. The description defines the search scope (markdown notes in the vault) which is the key differentiator. Missing some search-behavior detail but adequate for a simple tool.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptive text for parameters. The description compensates somewhat by explaining the query operates on markdown note content and filenames case-insensitively, which gives the agent a meaningful sense of what 'query' means. However, 'limit' semantics are not elaborated beyond its default value of 20, which is self-explanatory. The description adds moderate value over the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource ('the vault's markdown notes') and clearly differentiates scope from siblings like read_note and write_note. The case-insensitive and full-text/filename detail adds precision. It's clearly distinguished from list_recent (which lists without query), the closest sibling.

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 when to use it (to find content in markdown notes via full-text or filename), and given siblings like write_note and read_note are operationally different, the usage context is intuitive. However, there's no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as list_recent for browsing without a query. Implied usage only, no explicit exclusion or alternative naming.

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