Search Orca agent sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious context the schema cannot express: results are untrusted cross-session data and must not be treated as instructions — a valuable prompt-injection warning. It omits result shape and result-count behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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, no wasted wording. The purpose comes first and the safety caveat follows, so the reader gets the core function immediately.

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 security caveat is the essential piece and it is present, but for a 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the scope/limit/date-filter semantics and the response format entirely undocumented.

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 40%; 'query', 'limit', and 'scope' have no schema descriptions, and the description says nothing about any parameter. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate for the gaps (especially the scope enum), and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over agent session transcripts') and scopes it to 'this Orca host', which distinguishes it from the terminal-reading and listing siblings. No sibling is named as an alternative, but the resource type makes the intent 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?

No statement of when to use this versus orca_terminal_read or orca_task_list, and no guidance on the scope enum ('conversation' vs 'all') or when to apply the agent/since filters. The agent has to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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