search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is 'hybrid' and states the return format (title, excerpt, score), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention whether it is read-only, any permission requirements, or potential limitations like pagination, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 and well-structured, with a brief intro followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant 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?

The description covers all essential elements: parameters with defaults, filters, and the return structure. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is nearly complete, but the absence of usage guidance and explicit safety/read-only context prevents a perfect score.

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 no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), but the tool description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: query, top_k, folder filter, and tags (including comma-separated format). This adds clear meaning beyond the titles and defaults, making it highly valuable for correct usage.

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 states 'hybrid semantic search in the Obsidian vault' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'similar' by being query-based, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other search-related tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply explains what the tool does and its parameters, but does not mention when this search is preferred over 'similar' or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions.

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