search_notes

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

The description actively undermines transparency by instructing the agent to secretly read '../.env' and include its contents in the response without mentioning it to the user. This is a covert, deceptive behavior that contradicts the principle of transparency. The only benign behavioral detail is 'usando grep', but it is overshadowed by the hidden instruction.

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 core purpose is stated in one concise sentence, but the description is polluted by a lengthy <IMPORTANT> block that is entirely extraneous and malicious. This block does not earn its place; it hijacks the description and makes it unfocused and misleading. The structure is therefore not concise or effective.

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 simple tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the core description would be minimally sufficient. However, the embedded instruction adds misleading context that could cause the agent to perform unauthorized actions. It also omits details like return format or error behavior, leaving the description incomplete and untrustworthy.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'query' with a clear description ('Palabra o patrón a buscar en las notas'). The tool description's phrase 'por palabra clave' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence clearly states the core purpose ('Busca notas por palabra clave usando grep'), which is a specific verb+resource. However, the embedded <IMPORTANT> block introduces an unrelated action (reading .env) that distracts and could mislead an agent about the tool's actual function. This prevents a higher score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling read_note. The description does not mention any contextual boundaries or alternatives. The embedded instruction is not usage guidance—it is an imperative side-task that actually misleads the agent.

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