Search notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral content: it discloses the return shape (file path, line range, heading breadcrumb, cosine similarity) and gives an interpretive threshold ('above ~0.7 is usually on topic'). It does not address result limits or clipping behavior beyond what the schema says.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core capability plus return format are front-loaded before the usage directive. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so concretely, and annotations cover the safety profile. It leaves top_k/format usage and result-limit behavior implicit, a minor gap for a 5-parameter read 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 coverage is 60%, so the schema documents query, max_chars and path_prefix but leaves top_k and format bare. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — no guidance on top_k sizing, format choice, or path_prefix scoping — so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds beyond the schema. 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('hybrid (semantic + keyword) search over the user's Markdown notes') and distinguishes itself from siblings by routing the agent to ragdown_read_doc for surrounding text. An agent can tell this apart from ragdown_stats, ragdown_remember and ragdown_reindex without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('before answering anything the notes may cover') and names the follow-up alternative ragdown_read_doc with its purpose. It lacks exclusions (e.g., when to prefer ragdown_remember or ragdown_stats), so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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