Synapse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that results include 'line numbers and context' and that the search is 'case-insensitive', which are not captured in annotations. No contradictions exist.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key behavioral details (line numbers, context, case-insensitivity) without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with three parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return format ('matching files with line numbers and context') and case-insensitivity, but could benefit from mentioning limitations (e.g., search scope, performance) for full 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 schema fully documents the three parameters (query, path, maxResults). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for 'path' or constraints for 'maxResults'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 the specific action ('Search'), target resource ('the vault for files'), and scope ('containing a text query'), distinguishing it from siblings like vault_list (list files) or vault_read (read file content). It provides a complete purpose statement without redundancy.

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 for text-based file searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vault_list (for listing files without content search) or synapse_query (for querying a different system). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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