search_notes

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

The description discloses key behaviors: case-insensitive substring search, context lines, truncation via max_chars_per_result, and default limit. However, with no annotations provided, it misses details like response format or what happens with no results.

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 very concise: one opening sentence, then a clean bullet list for arguments. Every sentence adds value 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?

With 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and search behavior adequately. It omits pagination or sorting, but for a search tool the core is covered. Output schema likely handles return values.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: query, scope (with values), limit (default 15), and max_chars_per_result (with truncation behavior).

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 verb 'search', the resource 'markdown notes', and the scope 'across domains, projects, and library'. This distinguishes it from sibling 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like semantic_search or search_fulltext. The description only lists scope options without clarifying use cases or exclusions.

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