find_prior_work

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: searches past threads, returns relevant decisions/gotchas and threadId, scopes to project if provided. It doesn't mention side effects, but none are implied for a read-only search.

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 4 sentences, each serving a purpose. The main verb and resource are front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (past threads with decisions/gotchas and threadId). It also notes a prerequisite and when to call, making it self-contained.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining query as a task description, project as substring match, and limit default. This exceeds the schema's minimal 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 clearly states the tool finds prior sessions similar to a task, using specific language like 'have I done this before?' guard. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it searches all projects and returns decisions/gotchas with threadId.

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 advises calling at the start of a task and to pass a short description as query. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but provides clear context including a prerequisite about distilled threads.

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