Search notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('file:line matches'), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but says nothing about result limits, ranking/ordering, case sensitivity, whether it's regex or substring matching, or whether the operation is read-only.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return-format clause earns its place by compensating for the missing output schema.

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 one-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the what and the return shape but omits query semantics, result caps, and ordering — details an agent needs to call it well and interpret results.

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%, so the description should compensate for the single 'query' parameter, but it doesn't explain query syntax (substring vs regex vs multi-term/boolean). The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at minimum-viable rather than failing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full-text search across notes') plus the output shape ('file:line matches'), which distinguishes it from list_notes and read_note by implying content matching rather than enumeration or retrieval. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.

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 on when to search versus when to list_notes or read_note, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that search is for keyword lookup and list_notes is for enumeration.

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