search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the operation is a search across all notes and discloses the return fields (file, line, snippet), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention edge cases like no matches or whether hidden files are included, but the core behavior is 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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope and then stating the return shape. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a search tool with three well-documented parameters, this description is nearly complete: it names the resource, scope, and output shape. It could specify search semantics (e.g., substring vs. regex) or behavior on no matches, but the description plus schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly in most cases.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Searches text across all notes in the vault.' It also clarifies the output shape (file, line, snippet), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes or read_note. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 when to use it (when you need to find matching text across notes), but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as get_backlinks or read_note, nor does it state when not to use it. The scope 'across all notes in the vault' provides some usage context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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