search_by_file_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains searching session history and returning a list, but lacks details on performance, pattern syntax, or edge cases. It is adequate but not deep.

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 brief elaboration, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence is relevant and non-redundant, well-structured for quick parsing.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage context sufficiently for a simple search 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 coverage is 0%, so description adds value by explaining both parameters: file_pattern with example patterns, and max_results with default value. This provides necessary semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 it finds sessions referencing a specific file or path pattern, using strong verbs like 'Find' and 'Searches'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_sessions by being file-path-specific.

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 ('useful for finding past work on specific files or directories') and implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like search_sessions.

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