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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action; it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, describe what is returned, or mention result ordering or limitations. 'Search' implicitly suggests a read operation, but the lack of return-value information is a meaningful gap.

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 or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it very 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?

For a simple tool with full schema coverage and only three flat parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no guidance distinguishing it from the generic 'search' and 'query' siblings, the description leaves gaps around return values and the precise scope of 'for a project.'

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 schema already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'query' performs full-text matching and that the 'project' parameter scopes the search across that project's notes, going beyond the minimal schema descriptions.

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 identifies a specific action ('Full-text search') and resource ('notes'), and scopes it to 'a project.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and is enough to recognize it as the notes-specific search tool among siblings like 'search' and 'query', though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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. Given siblings include a generic 'search' and 'query', an agent is left to infer that search_notes should be used specifically for searching notes rather than broader content.

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