find_notes_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the search is by filename containing text, but does not disclose behavior for exactMatch, case sensitivity, the scope of the search (all notes vs folder), or the return format. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentences that both contribute: the first gives a high-level purpose, the second specifies the contains behavior. No wasted words.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description should explain return values and search scope. It does neither, and it fails to mention the exactMatch option entirely, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'contains' behavior for the name parameter, which is already in the schema, but adds no additional meaning for exactMatch or other aspects.

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 action 'Find notes by their filename' and specifies the resource (notes) and criterion (filename). This distinguishes it from content search tools like search_notes or search_by_tag.

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 indicates the use case: searching notes by filename. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for content search, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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