semantic_search

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

No annotations provided. Description reveals that results are deduped notes with best-matching chunk preview (~500 chars) and instructs to call read_note for full content. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but as a search tool it's implied.

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?

Description is concise: two paragraphs followed by a structured bullet list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and key information is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (semantic search with multiple filters) and the existence of an output schema (so return values are covered), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, and key behavioral details like dedup.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args' section explaining all 5 parameters, including default values for limit and folder, note about tags being AND logic, and strict type matching for frontmatter.

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?

Description clearly states it performs vector similarity search using bge-m3 embeddings for conceptual or paraphrased queries, distinguishing from exact matching. The verb 'search' and resource 'notes' are explicit.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (conceptual/paraphrased queries) and when not (exact identifiers, symbols), and names the alternative tool keyword_search. Also advises calling read_note for full content.

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