query_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It warns that returned text is untrusted data, which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The warning adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of two short sentences. Every sentence adds information, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explaining the return format). Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and a key behavioral note. However, it lacks details on query syntax, result format, and whether the search is full-text or filtered. More context would be helpful.

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 0% with no description for the 'query' parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent to guess what constitutes a valid query or how it is interpreted.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('local Markdown notes'). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file' which might also access notes, but the purpose is still clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is that returned text is untrusted, but it does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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