Search Technical Notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it searches markdown and code files and uses the NOTES_DIR environment variable. However, it does not explain what 'most relevant file' means, what happens on no match, or if multiple matches are possible.

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 two sentences, no filler, and the first sentence immediately conveys the action. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the scope, constraints (local files, env var), and output. It is mostly complete, though missing behavior on no match or multiple 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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'keyword' parameter with case-insensitive behavior (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond stating the file types (markdown and code), which is a minor addition.

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 action ('Search local markdown and code files for a keyword') and the output ('return the contents of the most relevant file'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_system_resource_usage' which deals with system resources, making its purpose unique and specific.

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 the tool (when searching for a keyword in notes), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context.

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