Search Vault

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.