search_notes

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side effect: writing full matched cards/fields to disk. However, it omits details such as whether Anki notes are modified (read-only on Anki), file format, overwriting behavior, or required permissions. The disclosure is partial, adding some transparency but leaving notable 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 a single sentence that is lean and front-loaded. It conveys the action, the syntax used, and the side effect in a compact manner, with no redundant words or filler. It is concise without sacrificing essential 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?

Despite there being an output schema, the description is too brief for a tool with three parameters and a disk-write side effect. It lacks guidance on the output file format, the expected query structure, how limits interact with results, and any caveats about writing to disk. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema and output schema more deeply to call the tool correctly, indicating incomplete contextual coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does clarify that 'query' uses Anki browser syntax, which is meaningful and not evident from the schema alone. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the 'output_file' parameter beyond implying it is the disk destination. The description adds modest value but does not fully document all parameters.

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 (notes), and specifies the use of Anki browser syntax for the query. The mention of 'writing full matched cards/fields to disk' also distinguishes this tool from 'search_cards' by indicating a disk-writing behavior and a focus on notes rather than cards. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives, so it misses the top score for explicit differentiation.

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 like 'search_cards'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description implies a specific use case (searching notes with browser syntax and saving results) but does not offer explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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