ima_search_notes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of pagination behavior (the start/end params), result caps, matching semantics (substring vs fuzzy), or permissions. Only the title-vs-body distinction adds context, which is largely restating a schema enum.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

For a 4-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the description should explain pagination and result shape. It leaves the agent to guess how start/end work and what a result contains.

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% across 4 parameters. The description covers the search_type concept in prose (title or body), but says nothing about the query string format or the start/end pagination parameters, which an agent must infer from bare names and defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("搜索 IMA 笔记" / search IMA notes) and notes the two searchable scopes (title or body). It is clearly distinguishable from list-style siblings like ima_list_notes, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implies "use this to search notes"; it gives no conditions for choosing this over ima_list_notes or ima_get_note_content, and no prerequisites, rate limits, or exclusions.

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