find_by_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that retrieval is 'high-precision based on human curation' and clarifies that 'match governs the tag set only', which explains parameter behavior. It does not mention rate limits or authorization, but for a read tool, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds narrowing options and clarifies match scope. No redundant words; front-loaded with key information. Excellent conciseness.

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 covering purpose and parameter interactions, the description lacks explanation of the output format ('note headers') and does not discuss pagination or return structure. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that match only applies to tags and how folder/where narrow the search. This contextualizes parameters beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Find notes matching one or more tags, as note headers', specifying the verb, resource, and key criterion. It adds context about 'high-precision retrieval based on human curation', which helps differentiate from full-text search tools like search_notes. However, it does not fully define what 'note headers' entails compared to full note 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 implies usage for tag-based retrieval and mentions narrowing with folder and frontmatter filters. However, it lacks explicit direction on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_notes, query_notes) and does not provide exclusion criteria.

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