search_by_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that tags are searched both in frontmatter and inline content, which is non-obvious and adds value beyond the schema. It also states the multi-tag behavior, though it omits the optional 'matchAll' toggle; however, the schema covers that parameter.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, tag locations, and multi-tag behavior. It does not specify the return format or explicitly mention the 'matchAll' option, but the latter is in the schema, and for a search tool, the missing return description is a minor gap.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about tag locations (frontmatter/inline), which indirectly clarifies what the 'tags' parameter matches, but it does not add detailed parameter-level semantics beyond 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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Find all notes that have specific tags.' It also provides important details about tag locations (frontmatter or inline) and multi-tag behavior, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like 'simple_search' or 'get_all_tags_in_vault'.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find notes by tags, including notes with tags in frontmatter or inline. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and different from other search tools.

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