search_by_dataview_field_tool

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

With no annotations, the description covers all behavioral aspects: offline filesystem-native operation, canonicalization rules, performance estimates for typical vault sizes, and return format (grouped by file with counts). This is complete and 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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. It is concise but could be slightly shortened. Every sentence adds value, and the format aids readability.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, canonicalization, performance, and returns. It lacks explanation of the ctx parameter, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema covers 80% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds canonicalization details for 'key' but does not significantly enhance meaning for other parameters beyond schema. Performance and return info are not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it finds notes containing a specific Dataview field, using verbs 'Find all notes' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_by_date, search_notes, and search_tasks by focus on Dataview fields.

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 'When to use' section lists specific scenarios like finding notes with metadata and building dynamic collections, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other cases, but the list guides appropriate use.

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