search_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the output (matching lines with context) and the scope, but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or any limitations such as case-sensitivity or result limits. It provides some behavioral context but not a full safety profile.

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, with two sentences covering purpose, scope, and output. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant wording.

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 description covers action, optional conversation scoping, and expected return format. While there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will receive. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but these are not essential for a search tool at this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both query and conversation_id. The description reinforces the conversation_id behavior ('searches all conversations or a specific one') but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what's in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a full-text search across artifact files, distinguishing it from listing or reading operations. It specifies the resource (artifacts) and the scope (all or one conversation), making it 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 implies using this tool when a full-text search is needed, but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like list_artifacts or read_artifact. It provides context about conversation scoping but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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