Search the remio knowledge base

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by describing a search operation. The description adds useful context about the breadth of content searched (notes, files, email, etc.) but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and ends with a strategic usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

This is a high-complexity search tool with 15 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, so the description needs to provide substantial guidance. It covers purpose and preference but omits essential context about parameter usage, result shape, pagination, or edge cases. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer too much from parameter names alone.

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%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. However, it only lists content categories (notes, files, email, Slack, meetings) without mapping these to any of the 15 parameters. It does not clarify query syntax, filter semantics, sort options, or limit behavior, leaving parameter usage mostly undocumented.

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 identifies the tool as a search operation over the remio knowledge base, enumerating content types like notes, files, email, Slack, and meetings. It also distinguishes itself from the read-by-ID sibling tool by urging preference for search before direct reads.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Prefer this before reading a note by ID'), providing a direct usage guideline and implicitly distinguishing it from remio_read. This is clear, actionable guidance for tool selection.

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