semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that results are deduped notes with a ~200-character best-matching chunk preview, key behavioral detail. It also explains matching semantics for tags ('ALL') and frontmatter (strict type matching). It does not explicitly state non-mutation, but the verb 'search' implies it, so the description goes well beyond a bare schema.

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 dense but efficiently structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, result format, next step, then a cleanly formatted Args list. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, when to use it, result shape, parameter semantics, and a suggested follow-up action. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured externally. There are no meaningful gaps for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must document all parameters itself. It does so thoroughly for all five: query semantics, limit with default, folder prefix example, tags with ALL-match behavior, and frontmatter with a strict-type-matching example. This far exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('search'), resource ('vault's chunk embeddings'), and method ('vector similarity'). It explicitly contrasts with keyword_search, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this tool from its closest sibling without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('conceptual or paraphrased queries'), when-not-to-use ('exact identifiers, code symbols... use keyword_search instead'), and even a follow-up action ('Call read_note on a result's path'). This fully routes the agent between alternatives.

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