search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that matching is literal/regex-based ('Plain text matching, no embeddings'), that results include 'surrounding lines,' and that results are excerpts requiring the agent to judge relevance. These details add meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It stops short of describing pagination, limits, or error behavior, but the essentials are present.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output, and the second sentence adds a practical workflow instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 five parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the search type and points to read_note for follow-up, but it does not explain parameter meanings, result format details beyond 'surrounding lines,' or edge cases. An agent would still need to guess at folder scoping and case sensitivity behavior, making the description insufficient for a fully informed call.

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 must compensate, but it only mentions 'Literal or regex,' which maps to the regex parameter. It does not explain query, limit, folder, or case_sensitive, leaving the agent to infer their meanings from names and defaults. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema 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?

The description states a specific verb ('search'), a specific resource ('note CONTENT'), and the method ('Literal or regex'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_frontmatter and search_by_tag. It also indicates the output includes surrounding lines, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage by saying 'Read the excerpts, judge relevance yourself, then `read_note` the ones that matter,' which gives a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_frontmatter or search_by_tag, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The 'Plain text matching, no embeddings' line hints at a limitation but does not offer a direct alternative.

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