vault_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It explicitly warns about exposure of user-registered vault content and indirect prompt injection risks from untrusted remotes, and discloses that results include scores and snippets. This goes well beyond basic descriptions.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the caution is placed at the end as an important but secondary warning. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return value (matches, scores, snippets), mentions the optional vault scoping, and includes a critical security warning. This is complete for a search tool with this complexity and no annotations.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what is already in the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 ('Performs a full-text search') and identifies the resource ('notes in one or all indexed vaults'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_search or vault_list_notes. It also states what is returned, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage for full-text search across vaults and mentions the optional vault_name parameter for scoping. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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