search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It details the envelope structure, distinguishes between 'semantic' and 'keyword' modes, explains coverage implications, warns about partial blindness, and specifies that empty results can mean absence or failure—critical for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then explains the return envelope and failure modes. Every sentence adds essential value, clarifying edge cases that would otherwise be ambiguous. No filler or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (mode-dependent behavior, coverage calculation, warnings), the description is remarkably complete. It covers return structure, interpretation of edge cases, and actionable guidance, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds operational guidance beyond the schema, such as 'lower the threshold to widen recall' and typical relevance score ranges, which directly helps agents calibrate threshold and limit parameters effectively.

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 explicitly states 'Semantic search over the vault' which names the verb (search), resource (vault), and method (semantic). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_similar_notes and get_embedding_neighbors by focusing on vault-wide text search and explaining the envelope structure.

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 provides clear context on how to interpret results (modes, coverage, warnings) and when to trust empty results, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases. It implies usage as the primary search tool but lacks explicit when/ when-not guidance against siblings.

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