search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'full-text search' and 'returns matching filenames' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any limitations (e.g., case sensitivity, matching scope), or potential side effects. The behavioral details are minimal.

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 short, direct sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded, and the return type is stated succinctly. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core operation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. It is adequate but not complete, especially given the absence of 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?

The schema has only a query parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the tool description must compensate. It does not explain what the query should contain, its format, or constraints beyond the parameter name. The description implies the query is the search term but provides no elaboration.

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 tool performs full-text search across saved notes and returns matching filenames. It identifies the specific verb and resource, and the return value, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes that likely just enumerate notes without search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. An agent would have to infer when to use search_notes over list_notes or other tools.

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