Buscar en la boveda

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

The description discloses that the search is case-insensitive, returns matches with note:line locations, and is read-only ('Solo lectura'). With no annotations provided, these details are essential for safe invocation.

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 compact, two sentences, and front-loads the primary action. It covers essential behavioral traits without tangential 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?

The tool has simple parameters and no output schema, but the description adequately explains the return format and search scope. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds valuable context for the query parameter by specifying case-insensitivity and the .md scope, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Busca' (searches), targets '.md' notes in the vault, and specifies the return of matches with location (note:line). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools read_note and list_notes.

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 defines the tool's scope (searching .md notes) and its read-only nature, implying it should be used when finding content across notes rather than reading a specific note or listing notes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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