search_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Disclosing 'using ripgrep' implies regex/case-sensitive line-based matching and 'returns matching lines with file paths' describes output shape, but it omits auth requirements, result limits, and whether the search is read-only in practice.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return format trailing it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the ripgrep mention covers the search mechanic. However, the fully undocumented 'scope' parameter and absent usage routing leave gaps for a tool with a sibling that also lists notes.

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 explains neither parameter. 'query' is self-evident from its name, but 'scope' is an undocumented optional string with a null default, leaving the agent unable to tell what values it accepts or what it constrains.

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 and resource ('Search the vault') plus the underlying mechanism (ripgrep) and the return shape. This clearly separates it from read/list/move siblings, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

No guidance on when this tool is preferred over list_notes or read_note, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is for pattern matching rather than enumerating or fetching files.

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