search_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if the search is case-sensitive, supports regex, returns structured data, has pagination, or any performance traits. This leaves the agent guessing about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly concise at the expense of clarity, as it could benefit from more detail to improve usability without becoming verbose.

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 the complexity of search functionality and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how results are structured, which is critical for an agent to use the tool effectively in a vault with many sibling tools.

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%, with the 'query' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a search query, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately without extra value from the 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?

The description states the action ('Search') and target ('content in the Obsidian vault'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what type of content (notes, tags, files) or how results are returned, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_tags' or 'list_notes', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_by_tags', 'list_notes', and 'find_similar_notes', the description lacks context for choosing this tool, such as whether it searches full text, metadata, or across all vault content, leading to potential misuse.

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