slipbox_search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses search scope (titles and content), tag format (comma-separated), note_type allowed values, and limit default. However, it does not describe result ordering, case sensitivity, or return format, which is a notable gap 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?

The description is well-structured with an intro, behavior statement, bulleted examples, and a clean parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information with no wasted words.

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?

All parameters are documented with examples and defaults, which is sufficient for invocation. However, because there is no output schema, the description would be more complete if it briefly mentioned the return shape (e.g., list of matching notes). Overall it is solid but missing that piece.

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?

The Args section fully explains all four parameters with clear descriptions, example values, and the allowed note_type list. Since schema coverage is 0%, this completely compensates and gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states the specific verb 'Search' and resource 'notes' with three filter dimensions (text, tags, type), and adds scope detail ('Searches across titles and content'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_similar_notes or list_notes_by_date.

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 concrete usage examples and explicitly says parameters can be combined for precise filtering. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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