search_vault

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only search operation and lists the searchable facets, but it does not disclose result ordering, default pagination behavior, or how filters combine. Search inherently implies non-destructive behavior, so this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes a distinct search dimension, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters, and the description names the main search modes, so the tool is callable as-is. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return shape or matching behavior, which leaves a moderate gap for an agent predicting results.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the main filter dimensions (keyword, tags, frontmatter, folder) but does not add meaning beyond the schema, especially for limit/offset or the exact frontmatter filter syntax.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search vault notes') and enumerates the search dimensions: keyword, tags, frontmatter filters, and directory subpath. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note, get_vault_tree, or list_tasks.

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 when to use the tool—when finding notes by keyword, tags, frontmatter, or folder—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Since no other search-specific sibling exists, the usage context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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