Search the vault

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: hybrid keyword+semantic retrieval with spelling correction, ranked results with snippets, and a self-reported coverage statement. It doesn't mention result volume limits or truncation behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and search semantics, then the return shape. The parenthetical is dense but each clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 steps in to describe the return payload (ranked hits, snippets, note ids) and the search semantics. It is adequate for a 6-param search tool, though it leaves filter semantics and the limit ceiling undocumented.

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 description coverage is 67% and the description only gestures at 'optional filters' without explaining type, topic, project, since, or the limit cap of 50. In particular the type enum with 12 values is left entirely to the schema, so the description adds little beyond baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (every note) with scope (full-text, optional filters), and it distinguishes itself from brain_recent by saying 'every note' rather than recency-based listing. It also names brain_read as the downstream consumer of returned note ids.

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?

Explains accepted input styles ('keywords or a short question both work') and what to do with the results (note ids for brain_read), which gives clear context for use. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling like brain_recent or brain_graph, so it lacks exclusions.

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