brain_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Search' implying read-only, but does not disclose whether results are ordered, paginated, or if there are rate limits or data retention implications. The phrase 'raw conversation turns' hints at verbatim content but lacks detail on what constitutes a 'turn'.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to front-load the core action and add a brief second sentence clarifying the scope (e.g., 'Returns up to `limit` results matching `query`, filtered by time range').

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return format, ordering (e.g., chronological), or behavior when no results are found. With 4 parameters including time filters, additional context is needed for effective use.

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% (all parameters have schema descriptions). The description adds 'by keyword' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but does not elaborate on the meaning or interplay of 'limit', 'since', 'until' beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'episode history (raw conversation turns)', and the mechanism 'by keyword'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like brain_query (likely semantic search) by emphasizing raw history and keyword matching.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., brain_query for semantic search). It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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