search_vault_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states a basic action. It does not disclose traits like read-only vs. destructive, performance implications, or other behavioral details beyond the core operation.

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, front-loaded sentence of 8 words conveys the tool's essence without waste or redundancy. 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?

Given 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions provenance but does not clarify search scope (e.g., within a vault). Context is implied but not rich.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool-level description adds no extra meaning beyond 'search', relying on the schema's per-parameter descriptions. Baseline 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 clearly specifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('parsed note blocks'), and includes a distinctive detail ('with file and line provenance'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like get_vault_note_context and list_vault_notes, which focus on note-level operations.

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 siblings. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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