search_by_folder

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

The description discloses one key behavioral trait: 'Descendant folders are included by the search backend.' This gives useful information about the tool's scope. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as read-only nature, potential side effects, or permissions, which would be relevant given there are no annotations to fill those 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 concise—two sentences—and directly addresses the core purpose and a key behavior. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated as existing), the description covers the essential purpose and a key scoping behavior. It is slightly incomplete regarding usage context and potential side effects, but these are not critical for a basic search operation. The tool is adequately described for its intended function.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. However, the descriptions are minimal: 'search text', 'number of results', and 'folder filter, such as 'projects' or 'research/python'. They do not elaborate on semantic behavior, default handling (though top_k has a default in the schema), or the expected format of the folder parameter beyond an example.

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 function: 'Search semantically within one vault folder.' It specifies the verb (search) and the resource (vault folder), and emphasizes the folder scoping, which distinguishes it from broader search siblings like search_vault or search_vault_hybrid.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks statements like 'use this when you need to search a specific folder' or 'instead of search_vault for whole-vault searches.' The only additional note about descendant folders is a behavior, not a usage recommendation.

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