emacs_org_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search org files for text or headings' implies a read operation but does not state whether results are returned, whether the search is regex/plain text, how results are formatted, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral information.

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 concise sentence with the action front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it is brief to the point of under-specifying available search types. Still, as far as structure and length, it is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no description of return values or search behavior, the description is not fully self-sufficient. The input schema is well-documented, but an agent still lacks essential context about what results look like and how the search behaves across buffers, agenda, or directories.

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%, and each parameter has a description and enums where applicable, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds little beyond the schema, except the phrase 'text or headings', which partially overlaps the 'type' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('org files'), and mentions 'text or headings' as the targets, which is enough to distinguish it from many siblings like emacs_org_read or emacs_project_search. However, it omits the 'tag' and 'property' search types that appear in the type enum, so it is not fully accurate.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emacs_project_search or emacs_org_read. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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