Search Notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The parenthetical '(ripgrep)' hints that the query supports regex/substring matching, which is a useful but thin disclosure; nothing is said about case sensitivity, matching scope beyond name/content, or result ordering.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it under-delivers rather than being an example of well-structured completeness.

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 described. However, for a no-annotation search tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits query matching semantics, the limit parameter, and any routing versus read_note, leaving it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the required 'query' parameter searches both name and content, which adds real meaning, but the 'limit' parameter (default 20) is never mentioned, leaving its behavior undocumented in both schema and description.

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 notes') and names the fields searched ('by name and content'), so an agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like create_note/update_note. It does not explicitly contrast with read_note, which is the closest alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as read_note for retrieving a known note. The usage is only weakly implied by the word 'Search', so the agent must infer when this beats read_note.

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