search_vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format (matching files with line numbers and context), regex support, and folder filtering. It does not mention limitations like default result caps, case sensitivity behavior, or whether the search is read-only, though these are partially present in 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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by useful capabilities and return format. Every sentence contributes value.

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 search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return information. It does not explain result limits or case sensitivity, but those are documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect from the 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds brief context for the folder and regex parameters, but it does not meaningfully expand on query semantics or the maxResults/caseSensitive parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 (full-text search), a resource (all notes in the vault), and key capabilities (plain text, regex, filtering by folder). It distinguishes itself from sibling read/list tools by emphasizing search-plus-context, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to find matching notes by content, especially with regex or folder scoping. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to list_vault, read_note, or other discovery tools.

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