search_jsonlogic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are limited or paginated, which JsonLogic operators are supported, or how errors in the query string are surfaced — all meaningful for a DSL-driven search tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states the action and pattern, the second states the use case. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers the minimum: what it does and the intended query domain. It leaves real gaps for a JsonLogic DSL tool — supported operator set, result shape, and result limits — which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents that a JsonLogic query is expected as a JSON string. The description adds only the domain hint that queries are meant to filter notes by metadata fields, which is mild added value over the schema.

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 ('Run a JsonLogic query against the vault') and adds a scope qualifier ('structured/programmatic searches'), which distinguishes it from the plain-text 'search_vault' and the 'search_dataview' siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives, but an agent can infer the distinction from the wording.

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?

'Useful for filtering notes by metadata fields' implies the usage context, so the agent knows this targets metadata rather than free text. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over search_vault or search_dataview, nor any prerequisites, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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