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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and describes pagination behavior, which helps an agent understand it may receive partial content with limit/offset. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but for a read tool the core behavioral traits are covered.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and key pagination behavior in a compact way that is easy to parse.

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?

For a straightforward read tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly noting that full content may require multiple paginated calls and by referencing sibling tools, but the current definition is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, so the input schema already explains rel_path, limit_lines, and offset_line. The description's mention of 'line number pagination' adds conceptual context but not new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('full markdown content of a specific note'), and a distinctive mechanism ('line number pagination'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools search_vault and sync_vault, which are clearly different operations.

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 implies the tool should be used when you know the exact note path and need its full content, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over search_vault or sync_vault. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the retrieval pipeline (BM25, dense embeddings, RRF, reranking), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, mention any network/local dependencies, or note potential latency from reranking.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose. The second sentence lists the technical underpinnings, which is informative but slightly dense with jargon; it still earns its place by explaining what 'Hybrid RAG' means. No redundant filler.

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?

For a search tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and mechanism sufficiently. The main gap is the missing guidance on tool selection relative to siblings, and the lack of explicit safety/read-only context due to absent annotations.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters (query, top_k, heading_filter) with descriptions and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to since the schema already covers it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search your Obsidian knowledge base.' It clearly identifies the tool as a search operation, distinct from the sibling tools get_note and sync_vault. The additional technical detail (Hybrid RAG) reinforces its specialized role.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use search_vault versus get_note or sync_vault. The description states what the tool does but provides no alternatives, exclusions, or contextual conditions that would help an agent decide between the siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says it triggers a sync and updates vectors and indexes, but it doesn't mention whether it's safe to call (read-only vs mutating), what side effects occur (e.g., does it modify the vault or just the index?), or any performance implications. An agent cannot infer the safety profile from this sparse description.

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 concise, with two sentences: the first states the primary action, and the second elaborates on scope and effects. It's front-loaded with the key verb, and there's no wasted words. However, it could have been structured to include a leading phrase for when to use it, but it's still 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?

Given that this tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the description lacks context on when to use it relative to siblings (e.g., after editing notes) and what the impact is. It's adequate for a simple trigger tool but could be improved by mentioning that it's for keeping search indexes up to date, which is implied but not explicit.

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?

Since there are no parameters, the description needs to explain the scope of the sync, which it does by mentioning it's incremental and scans for created/modified/deleted notes. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation; it provides clear semantics for what the tool does without any input.

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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Trigger incremental sync') and the resource ('Obsidian vault'). It also specifies what the sync does: scanning for created, modified, or deleted notes and updating dense vectors & FTS5 index. This is specific and distinguishes it from search_vault and get_note, which are read operations, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever the vault's notes have changed and you need indexes updated. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for full re-index) or compare it to search_vault or get_note as alternatives for different purposes. The context that it's for syncing is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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