simple_search

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

It discloses the exact-match and case-insensitive behavior, which is useful. But with no annotations, the description should also mention whether the operation is read-only and what the return format is. It leaves these gaps.

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 sentences are used effectively: the first states scope, the second adds behavior and use case. No fluff, information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, but there is no output schema, so the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., matching note names). It also does not position itself against siblings like search_with_context or search_notes, leaving a slight gap in context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both query and limit. The description adds crucial semantics to the query parameter by specifying 'exact text' and 'case-insensitive', which is not in the schema description. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 action and scope: 'Simple text search across all notes in the vault' and 'Searches for the exact text (case-insensitive)'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_by_tag or search_in_folder, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Good for finding specific phrases or terms.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, despite many sibling search tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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