vault_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the hybrid search mechanism and default compact results, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, relies on a pre-built index (possible staleness), or returns any metadata. It adds some behavioral context but leaves important gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main action. Every clause adds value—the first states purpose and method, the second gives result defaults and a relevant alternative. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 core functionality and some usage context, but lacks a full picture without an output schema or annotations. It doesn't explain the return structure beyond 'compact results', nor does it mention that the search relies on an index that may need reindexing (as suggested by the sibling vault_reindex). Adequate but with clear information gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual semantics beyond the schema by explaining the default detail behavior and advising when to use detail='full' versus memory_get. This helps the agent choose parameter values more effectively than the schema alone.

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 specifies a clear action ('Search'), a specific resource ('Obsidian vault index'), and a distinguishing method ('hybrid vector + FTS search'). It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and differentiates it from plain text search or memory search, making it distinct from siblings like obsidian_search and memory_search.

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 explicit usage guidance on result detail levels ('use detail='full' for content') and names an alternative tool ('memory_get') for fetching specific files. While it doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools like obsidian_search, it gives enough context for the agent to decide when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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