Search Notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (file paths with context snippets) and scope (full-text across all notes), which is useful behavioral detail beyond a tautological statement. It does not mention edge cases like case sensitivity or performance, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences long: the first states purpose and return format, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description covers purpose, return format, and usage examples, which is sufficient for a simple search tool with three well-documented parameters. It could mention behaviors like case sensitivity or pagination, but these are not essential given the schema covers parameter details.

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%, and all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a full-text search across all notes in the Obsidian vault and returns matching file paths with context snippets. The verb 'search' and resource 'all notes' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like search_by_tag by focusing on full-text content rather than tags.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to find existing PRDs, processes, Jira notes, or any content.' However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives like search_by_tag, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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