Pilot MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to state whether the search is case-sensitive, what fields are searched (title vs body), or what the tool returns (note IDs, titles, or full content).

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?

Extremely concise at only four words. No filler content, though this efficiency comes at the cost of omitting necessary context. Structure is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Lacks output schema explanation and provides no compensation for missing annotations. The mismatch between 'by keyword' description and empty input schema leaves critical functional gaps unexplained.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. However, the description references 'keyword' which implies a parameter that does not exist in the schema, creating confusion. It does not clarify the empty parameter list or explain how the search is triggered.

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?

States the basic action (search notes) and mechanism (by keyword), but fails to differentiate from sibling 'list_notes'. Additionally, claiming 'by keyword' is confusing given the input schema has zero parameters, leaving ambiguity about how the search term is provided.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'list_notes' or 'read_note'. No mention of prerequisites, expected inputs, or search scope (titles vs content).

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