search_session_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the search is semantic and returns snippets (implied by 'do not rely on this tool's snippets alone'), but it does not disclose details such as whether the query is case-sensitive, whether results are ranked, or any rate limits. It adds some behavioral context but lacks depth that annotations would typically cover.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately gives usage guidance and a caution. Every clause earns its place, making it efficient and easily parseable.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which covers return values) and a moderately simple tool with 3 parameters, the description covers the essential usage, workflow, and caveat. It tells the agent how to integrate results with another tool, which fully addresses the typical decision points for calling this tool.

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 description coverage is 67% (query and project_path are described). The description adds minimal insight beyond the schema; it implies query is natural language but says nothing about n_results semantics or how project_path determines the search scope. It does not compensate for the undocumented n_results parameter, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('semantically search') and a precise resource ('past session summaries under .context/sessions/'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_context_index and search_adr_index by scoping to session summaries, leaving no ambiguity about what it searches.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('to find prior session notes relevant to a topic') and provides a clear follow-up action ('pass their paths to load_context_files'), while also cautioning not to rely on snippets alone. This gives the agent an explicit workflow and redirects to a sibling tool appropriately.

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