search_vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auto-detection logic (regex metacharacters trigger regex search, otherwise case-insensitive keyword search) and the return format ('filepath:linenum: content'). It does not mention permissions, performance, or edge cases, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concisely formatted with a short top-line purpose, bullet points for search detection, and a clear args/returns structure. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description provides essential information: purpose, search type detection, parameter meaning, and return format. Minor gaps include whether search is recursive across subfolders and whether regex search is case-sensitive. These are not critical for a simple tool but keep it from a perfect score.

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 schema only provides a query string with no description. The description adds semantics by defining query as 'Search term or regex pattern' and explains how it affects behavior (regex vs keyword). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Search through all .md files in the vault.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note (reading a single note) and list_notes (listing notes). The scope is explicit (all .md files).

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 gives clear context: searching across all markdown files, with automatic regex vs keyword behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like read_note or list_notes, or provide exclusions. It implies usage but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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