grep

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

No annotations are provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a non-destructive read operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, performance, or what happens on missing indices. The mention of 'raw session transcripts' gives data source context but is minimal.

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?

Two sentences with purpose and usage guidance front-loaded. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for parameters).

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main goal and one parameter's usage. Missing details on pattern format and session_id, as well as behavioral aspects. Sufficient for a simple scan but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains scope_cwd (how to restrict scanning) but does not describe pattern (required) or session_id. Pattern being a substring vs regex is ambiguous, and session_id's purpose is unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs an on-demand substring scan over raw session transcripts, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like recall_search (likely semantic) and expand_around. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use scope_cwd (restrict to project vs global scan), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor 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.