Search Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this by specifying that the search returns optional matching-line context and can filter by folder, which are not derivable from the annotations alone. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and two key options. No words are wasted; every phrase adds value. It is perfectly concise for a simple search tool.

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 having an output schema (which covers return values), the tool has 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions, and the description only partially compensates by naming two of them. It omits critical context such as case sensitivity, limit behavior, and how the query parameter works. For a search tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, placing the burden on the description to explain all 5 parameters. The description only references two parameters (context and folder) via "matching-line context" and "folder filtering". The other parameters (query, limit, caseSensitive) remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps in the agent's understanding of how to use them.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: "Search the vault" with optional context and folder filtering. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like read_note (specific note retrieval) and vault_overview (overview), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 usage context (when you need to search the vault) but provides no explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_note or vault_overview. It mentions optional folder filtering and matching-line context, but does not state exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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