search_vault

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: case-insensitive substring matching, the default exclusion of archived nodes, and the shape of each returned entry. It says nothing about result limits, ordering, pagination, or permissions, which matter for a search tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and use case, then a compact Args block. Slight redundancy in restating 'case-insensitive substring match' for query after already stating it in the opening line, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still lists the entry fields helpfully. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only search limits and ordering are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: query is defined as a case-insensitive substring, and state is explained across all three modes (active default, archived, None for all). The only weakness is that 'None' is used where the schema type is null, a minor wording mismatch.

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 ('Search vault nodes by title and summary text') plus the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring). It also scopes the tool to the case where a keyword is known but the exact title or uid is not, which separates it from exact-lookup siblings like read_vault, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear use condition ('when you know a keyword but not the exact title or uid') and explains the state filter's three modes with the default spelled out. It stops short of naming alternatives such as find_nodes or list_vault or saying when not to use it.

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