search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching, fork awareness, max result limits, optional subagent inclusion, and the return of surrounding conversational context and branch info. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, it is evident from 'search' that no side effects occur.

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: a one-line purpose, a sentence on scope/return value, and a clear Args list. No filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the most important information and every sentence adds value.

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 tool is moderately complex with four parameters and an output schema. The description covers search scope, return format, fork awareness, parameter behavior, and constraints (max 50 results). Since an output schema exists, not detailing return fields is appropriate. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema provides no property descriptions, but the description's Args section explains every parameter: query (search text, case-insensitive), project (filter, empty for all), max_results (default 10, max 50), and include_subagents (search subagent files). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opening sentence 'Full-text search across Claude Code session history' uses a specific verb (search) plus a clear resource (session history), and the description clarifies that it searches conversation text with fork awareness and returns context/branch info. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list projects/sessions or retrieve threads/trees.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for searching text across sessions, with optional filtering by project and subagents. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent would use it for free-text search rather than listing or retrieval tasks.

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