search_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the search scope and supports regex/context lines, but does not mention read-only nature, result format, or important defaults like case sensitivity and maxResults cap. These are partially covered by the schema, but the description alone leaves 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and two noteworthy features without waste. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

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 has six parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to clarify what the tool returns. It mentions 'context lines around matches' but does not explicitly state that the tool returns matching files or how results are structured. Schema provides parameter semantics, but behavioral outcomes remain somewhat underspecified.

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 provides detailed descriptions and defaults for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing regex and context line capabilities that are already documented in the 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 tool's verb ('Search'), resource ('all notes in the vault'), and key features ('regex patterns', 'context lines'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_tag, which searches by tag rather than text.

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 implies usage context by mentioning text search across all notes and regex support, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_tag, list_notes, or other search variants. There are no 'when not to use' or alternative tool recommendations.

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