Search Compy notes

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

Without annotations, the description explains that the tool returns ranked matches and lists the output fields, indicating a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential side effects or limitations, but the search nature implies safe usage.

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?

Two sentences cover what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. No unnecessary information; the description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 description provides sufficient information to understand the tool's purpose, input parameters, and return structure without needing an output schema. It covers all key aspects for an agent to 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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds value by explaining how to use the query parameter ('pass keywords from what you're working on') and summarizing return fields, which complements the schema.

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 tool searches highlights, notes, and tasks captured on the web, and specifies the return fields (note text, quoted, tag, URL, origin). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_markdown or list_sites by focusing on search across these items.

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 advises to pass keywords from current work to find relevant notes, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context and sibling names imply appropriate use cases.

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