Query Base

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and not open-world. The description adds critical behavioral context: unsupported clauses are reported as warnings and treated as match-all, and it enumerates supported filter syntax and recognized file properties. This goes well beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands on syntax and behavior. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value (syntax details, unsupported clause handling). It could be slightly more concise, but it remains well-structured and informative.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameters (via schema and description), filter syntax, and edge cases (unsupported clauses). It lacks an explicit description of the output structure beyond 'matching note paths', but the overall completeness is high.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by detailing the filter syntax and recognized properties, which is not present in the schema. However, the description does not elaborate on the 'view' parameter's expected format or behavior beyond 'apply view filters and ordering'. This prevents a 5.

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 tool runs a Base file's filters against the vault and returns matching note paths. It specifies the action ('Run'), the resource ('Base file's filters'), and the output ('matching note paths'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like search_notes by focusing on Base file-driven queries.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (to apply Base file filters with optional view) and provides detailed filter syntax, which serves as usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of siblings and the specificity of the Base file mechanism imply the appropriate scenarios.

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