chronica_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses default limit (100), sorting (newest first), and that calling with empty object or limit only gets recent entries. However, it does not mention error conditions, required permissions, or behavior when no results are found.

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 well-structured with sections and uses bullet points for key scenarios. However, it is somewhat verbose, especially the proactive usage section which could be more concise. Still, every sentence contributes to clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return value structure. It mentions returned fields (body, tags, type) but not their format or any pagination info. Otherwise, it covers usage scenarios and behavior adequately.

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%, and description adds context: explains that thread_id overrides thread_type, that limit defaults to 100, and that for unfiltered listing the argument can be empty object or just limit. This adds meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool searches saved entries and returns a list including body, tags, and type. It distinguishes itself from chronica_list_threads by noting that list_threads only returns thread names, counts, and IDs, while this tool returns full entry details.

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 provides when to use (e.g., when user wants to look back at recent entries, search by tag/topic) and when not to use (for thread name/ID only, use list_threads). It also gives proactive usage guidance for background searches without metadiscourse.

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