search_simple

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'matching files with context around each match,' which adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic action. However, it doesn't cover aspects like performance, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage tip. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second provides guidance. It's efficient with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a search operation with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and its return format ('matching files with context'), but doesn't detail output structure or potential limitations. It's adequate but could be more thorough.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.

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 tool's purpose: 'Perform a simple text search across all files in the vault.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('files in the vault'), and scope ('all files'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_advanced' beyond calling it 'simple.' This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Best for straightforward text searches.' This suggests when to use this tool (for simple searches) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'search_advanced.' It offers some context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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