search_chats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are excerpts of old chats and warns to treat them as content rather than instructions, which is important safety context. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are required, or whether results are ranked or paginated.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and an example, then covers result content, safety, and filters. The sentences are generally efficient and nothing is wasted. The safety warning is slightly parenthetical but important enough to justify its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still helpfully names the hit fields. For a search tool with four parameters and no annotations, however, it leaves k undocumented and does not explain when to choose this over alternative retrieval tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains project filtering with examples ('repository's folder name, or scratch') and says since_days limits to recent chats, adding useful meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not explain the k parameter, which controls result count, or clarify query semantics beyond the search purpose.

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 and resource: searching past Claude Code conversations for user messages and Claude replies. The example question makes the intended retrieval scenario concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like recall, recall_full, or recent, so it falls short of a 5.

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 example question ('what did we decide about X last month?') implies when this tool is appropriate and explains that since_days and project narrow results. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternative retrieval tools such as recall or recent. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully directed.

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