View

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys vault scope and action-specific behaviors (e.g., heading-aware retrieval, hybrid search), but does not cover all actions' details, rate limits, or output format.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, but the action list is dense and could be more concise. It is not overly long, but some redundancy exists (e.g., 'search' vs 'semantic_search' both mention retrieval).

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 absence of an output schema and low schema coverage (25%), the description fails to explain return values, edge cases, or behavioral details for many parameters. The tool is multi-action and moderately complex, so more completeness is needed.

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 coverage is only 25%, yet the description does not describe any parameters beyond the actions. Parameters like maxChunks, heading, headingDepth, directory, and items remain unexplained, requiring the agent to infer from schema alone.

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 'Read and search markdown notes' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The list of actions further clarifies capabilities, but sibling tools (edit, system, vault, workflow) are not explicitly contrasted.

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 brief explanations for each action (e.g., 'search uses TF-IDF'), giving some guidance on when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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