Search vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'plain-text search', which hints at input format but does not reveal return behavior, side effects, access requirements, or whether it is read-only. The agent has no information about what happens on a match or no match, pagination, or performance characteristics.

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 with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise, but its brevity borders on under-specification, lacking behavioral details that would help an agent. It is well-structured but could have conveyed more context in the same length.

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 simplicity—one parameter, no output schema, no annotations—the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the return format, whether results are note names, paths, or content snippets, nor does it specify limits, case sensitivity, or wildcard support. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'query' as 'text to search for', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra semantics—'plain-text' implies no rich query syntax, but this is a weak hint and not a substantive addition over the schema. As the schema covers the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('search') and a specific resource ('the vault'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also differentiates from siblings like get_note and list_notes, which suggest retrieval of specific notes or lists, whereas search implies querying across content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_note or list_notes. It does not mention any prerequisites, filter conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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