Search notes

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: hybrid keyword+semantic matching, recency re-ranking, and that an empty list means no match. "Read-only" merely repeats the annotation, and ordering/pagination behavior under the limit is not elaborated, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the search mechanism, then routing, then return shape in a logical order with no filler. The standalone "Read-only." sentence duplicates the annotations and could be dropped, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the returned object shape and the meaning of an empty result. Combined with explicit routing to siblings, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces that the query matches titles, tags, and content, and adds no syntax or format detail for limit beyond the default already in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the vault for notes") plus the exact matching mechanism (keyword over titles/tags/content, semantic similarity when embeddings are configured, recency re-ranking). It distinguishes itself from brain_recall, brain_remember and brain_node_get, which are named directly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases (check for an existing note before brain_remember, obtain a note id for brain_node_get / brain_node_update) and names the alternative brain_recall with the condition that selects it (assembled context to answer a question).

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