Recall work-notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the search is by meaning (semantic) and that scope can be set to project, global, or all, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ranked, or whether prior indexing is required. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: three short sentences that lead with the core action, then use cases, then scope. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's purpose, typical use cases, and scope options, but it does not describe the output format or any prerequisites (e.g., whether notes must be indexed via scratchbook_index). Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a noticeable gap for a complete understanding.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning, merely paraphrasing the scope enum. It does not clarify the 'k' parameter or the 'project' parameter, so the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Search your past journal / work-notes by meaning'), identifies the resource, and distinguishes this tool from sibling 'scratchbook_search' by emphasizing semantic search ('by meaning'). It also enumerates concrete use cases like remembering prior decisions or flagged issues.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use it to remember what you were doing, prior decisions, or issues you flagged'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies a distinction from lexical search without naming siblings.

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