search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains case-insensitive matching, the default path-only return mode, and the context_lines behavior. It does not mention sorting, limits, or explicitly state read-only behavior, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 tool's moderate complexity, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers all parameters, default behavior, return format, and the optional context behavior. No critical gaps remain for an agent to use 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully documents all three parameters in the Args section, including defaults and the semantic difference when context_lines is 0 versus greater than 0. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search notes containing the query text.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_notes or find_backlinks by focusing on textual search within note content, with case-insensitive matching explicitly stated.

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 makes the use case clear: search notes by query text, optionally limiting the scope with a folder and controlling context line output. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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