search_notes

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 mentions the return type but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires any permissions. For a search tool, read-only behavior is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It states the purpose, the syntax, and the return value in a compact, front-loaded manner. Every word adds value.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and a simple return shape described, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on result ordering, limits, or error handling, but these are not critical for basic invocation. Given the absence of annotations, a slightly richer description could improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('query' and 'context_length') are already documented. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces that 'query' uses Obsidian syntax, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching notes using Obsidian's search query syntax. It specifies the action ('Search notes'), the resource ('Obsidian vault'), and the return value ('paths, scores, and snippets'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_note which retrieve a specific note.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or conditions (e.g., 'use get_note when you know the path'). Usage context must be inferred from the tool's name and the search syntax mention.

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