Semantic Search

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

Above and beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that the tool embeds queries, scores all chunks, deduplicates results, and does not auto-index due to cost. This equips the agent with operational understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition of functionality, explanation of internal process, and actionable usage guidance (prerequisites and pairing with get_note). No wasted words; front-loaded with critical 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?

Covers prerequisites, mechanism, and output structure (deduplicated best-matching note). However, lacks explicit mention of output format (e.g., list of notes with scores) and behavior for empty results. Given no output schema, these details would enhance completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context but does not significantly enhance the parameter descriptions beyond what the schema already provides. For example, the query parameter is already well-described in 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?

The description explicitly states 'Search notes by meaning rather than keywords', clearly distinguishing it from keyword-based search tools like search_notes. It also details the mechanism (embedding, scoring, deduplication), making the specific purpose unmistakable.

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?

It instructs to run index_vault first and explains why auto-indexing is disabled (embedding cost). It pairs with get_note for retrieval, providing a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools like search_by_tag.

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