노트 검색

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavior: case-insensitive matching and simple partial matching, and specifies the scope (Vault). It does not mention return format or pagination, but the disclosed behavior is substantive for a search tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds key behavioral details. No wasted words 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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search criteria and matching behavior. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., list of note paths, snippets, or full content), which is critical for an agent to use the results. This is a notable 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?

The schema already describes both parameters ('query' as '검색어', 'in' as '검색 대상 (기본 content)' with enum). The description adds global matching behavior (partial match, case-insensitive) but does not provide additional per-parameter details beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool searches notes within the Vault, with specific search criteria (filename, content, tags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note or list_directory, which serve different purposes.

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 purpose is clear, but there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_note (to retrieve a specific note) or list_directory (to enumerate files). The use case is implied rather than directly stated.

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