Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-searchByTag

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions an important side effect: 'Updates access tracking for discovered notes', which signals the tool mutates tracking state. However, it does not describe the return format, potential errors, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 consists of three concise sentences: the primary action, the scope, and the side effect. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the search scope and side effect. However, it does not state what the tool returns, which is a gap given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions ('Tag to search for' and 'Filter by status...'), and the tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3.

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 the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'all notes by tag across all types in the unified Zettelkasten knowledge base', and explicitly notes it searches user context, project notes, and guide notes simultaneously. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' and 'getPage'.

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 description indicates the tool's scope (all note types simultaneously) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools. It implies usage for tag-based searching across all types, providing clear context but no exclusions.

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