Search Everything

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool performs full-text search using FTS5, ranks results by relevance, and covers tasks, notes, and decisions. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or return packaging, but these are relatively minor for a read-only search tool.

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?

A single deliberately worded sentence that front-loads the core behavior, then the scope, then the ranking mechanism. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 the core operation and scope, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape of results or what happens when no project is specified, leaving some ambiguity for an agent invoking 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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds the project context and search scope, but it does not need to repeat schema-level parameter details, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb ('search') and a precise resource scope: full-text search across tasks, notes, and decisions. It also adds meaningful distinguishing detail via 'FTS5, ranked by relevance' and the title 'Search Everything', separating it from sibling tools like search_notes.

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 clearly conveys that this is the broad cross-category search tool rather than a notes-only search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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