Search by Tag

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains nested sub-tag matching, detection from both inline and YAML frontmatter, and the return format (note paths with optional content previews). This adds significant context on top of the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 concise at three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main function with a key feature, adding a detail on tag sources, and providing a use case. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary functionality, tag matching behavior, and return type. It is mostly complete, though it does not mention result ordering or pagination limits; however, these are covered in the schema for maxResults.

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 has 100% coverage and already contains detailed descriptions for all three parameters (e.g., tag, maxResults, includeContent). The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Find' and resource 'all notes tagged with a specific tag', and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning nested sub-tags and detection from inline #hashtags and YAML frontmatter. It also provides a concrete use case: 'collect notes belonging to a topic, area, or workflow stage'.

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 advises when to use the tool ('Use to collect notes belonging to a topic, area, or workflow stage'), and its mention of nested sub-tags implicitly differentiates it from other search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to specific alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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