search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '全文搜索' (full-text search) which implies a search across note content, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, case sensitivity, performance characteristics, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be integrated more seamlessly. No wasted sentences, though it's slightly terse.

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 operation), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is minimally complete. It explains the basic function and parameters but lacks details on search behavior, limitations, and comparison to siblings, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds minimal semantics: it states 'query: 搜索关键词' (query: search keyword), which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is baseline adequate but doesn't provide details like query syntax, length limits, or special operators.

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 purpose: '在笔记库中全文搜索笔记' (full-text search notes in the note library). It specifies the verb (search) and resource (notes), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_notes' or 'get_note', which is why it doesn't reach 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_notes' or 'search_tasks'. It simply states what the tool does without context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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