search_notes

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

The description discloses key behaviors: case-insensitive substring search, surrounding context lines, and truncation via max_chars_per_result. However, since annotations are absent, more could be said about side effects or performance characteristics.

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 and well-structured: a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with defaults. No unnecessary words.

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 four parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool effectively. Slight room for improvement by explaining the output format more explicitly.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing each parameter: query (search term), scope (options), limit (default 15), and max_chars_per_result (with 0 for no truncation). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Search markdown notes across domains, projects, and library,' specifying the verb (search), resource (markdown notes), and scopes, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like 'search_library' or 'search_fulltext'.

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 implies usage for searching markdown notes with case-insensitive substring matching, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention 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.