search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention search modes, limitations, or result behavior, though the schema's 'match' parameter description does provide meaningful detail about BM25 vs ripgrep semantics. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what is inferable from the schema.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff, effectively stating the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it could be enriched with a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite a detailed input schema and output schema, the tool description is minimal and does not provide tool-level context such as when to use it vs siblings or how the search behaves overall. It does not explain return values, but the output schema presumably covers that. Overall, the description is incomplete for guiding an agent on when and why to invoke this tool.

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 all five parameters are already well-documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, hitting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 a specific action ('Search') and resource ('the vault's markdown files'), conveying the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query' or 'related', but the statement is unambiguous about what it operates on.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the 'match' parameter description in the schema provides some usage context (ranked for topical recall, exact for identifiers), the tool description itself does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations.

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