search_vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It gives some useful detail about output ('source paths and exact line ranges') and establishes this is a read/search operation, but it does not mention behavior around missing index, result limits, or whether the search is exact or fuzzy.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary purpose and a key output characteristic efficiently.

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?

The description is enough for a basic query-only call, but not for correct use of the optional parameters. With no annotations and no schema descriptions, the agent is missing important context about 'min_score' and 'path_prefix', which are not obvious from the one-line description.

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 0%, and the description only loosely implies that 'query' is a semantic search term. It gives no meaning for 'limit', 'min_score', or 'path_prefix', leaving the agent to guess their roles entirely from names and defaults.

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 names a specific action ('Find'), a resource ('vault'), and defines the core capability: semantic relevance with source paths and exact line ranges. This clearly differentiates from siblings like vault_status, refresh_vault_index, and read_vault_note.

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 semantic-search phrasing implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over read_vault_note or when an index refresh might be required first. Usage context is present but not spelled out.

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