Search inside all canvases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the scope ('every canvas in the vault') and the return behavior ('Returns the canvases and the matching cards'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like case sensitivity, exact tag syntax, whether archived or hidden canvases are included, or that the operation is purely read-only.

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 just two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope immediately, then gives the return value in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what content is searched, the scope, and what is returned. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could be improved by naming sibling alternatives explicitly or describing output structure in more detail.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter, 'query', at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by tying the query to card text, titles, and #tags, but it does not add examples, syntax details, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('card text, titles, and #tags across every canvas in the vault'), and it states the return value. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_canvases, read_canvas, and even search_all_brains, since it scopes to canvas content vault-wide.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool to find text or tags inside any canvas in the vault. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_all_brains or other sibling search tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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