search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is searched (titles, content, tags), the return format (list ranked by relevance), and the FTS5 syntax support. It does not mention potential side effects or rate limits, but as a read-only search tool, the description adequately covers the key behavioral traits beyond what schema provides.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into Args and Returns sections. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff. The format is easy to scan and directly useful for an agent.

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 tool with a relatively simple purpose and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched, how to use the parameters, and what to expect in return. It also gives a concrete syntax example. No significant gaps remain for an agent to interpret correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does exceptionally. It explains 'query' as a search string with FTS5 syntax example, and 'limit' as a maximum result count with default. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema types and names, making the parameters self-explanatory.

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 'Full-text search across all notes (titles, content, and tags),' which specifies the verb (search) and resource (notes) and indicates the scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes, which likely lists without search. The purpose is direct and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it is for full-text searching across all notes, with support for FTS5 syntax. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_notes to see all notes without filtering'), but the function is clearly differentiated from sibling tools by its search-specific nature. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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