search_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full-text and semantic search' which gives some context about search methodology, but doesn't describe what 'saved nodes' are, how results are returned, whether there's pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core functionality without any wasted words. Every element ('search', 'saved nodes', 'full-text and semantic search') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 search tool with 4 nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'saved node', how search results are structured, what 'semantic search' entails operationally, or any limitations of the search functionality. The combination of complex parameters and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive context than provided.

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 description provides no parameter information beyond the tool name's implication of searching. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what parameters are available or their purposes. However, the schema itself is well-structured with clear property descriptions for query, tags, status, and limit, establishing a baseline understanding despite the description's lack of parameter details.

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 action ('search') and resource ('saved nodes'), specifying both full-text and semantic search capabilities. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'complete_node' or 'get_due_items' by focusing on search functionality rather than modification or retrieval of specific items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential search alternatives within the toolset.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or comparisons with other tools. While sibling tools like 'quick_capture' or 'snooze_node' serve different purposes, there's no explicit direction on when search is appropriate versus those operations.

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