search_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior: FTS5 full-text search, optional status filtering, a default limit, and relevance-ranked results. However, it does not explain what a matching session consists of, how results are shaped, or any pagination or failure behavior.

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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, mechanism, compact Args list, and Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not mention the required agent_id parameter, does not describe the return dict structure beyond 'ranked by relevance', and offers no guidance against sibling session/search tools.

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 is the only parameter documentation. It adds helpful context for query (FTS5 syntax), status (optional), and limit (default 20), but it completely omits agent_id, which the schema marks as required. This is a critical gap that would leave an agent uncertain what to supply.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Search across all sessions by message content.' It distinguishes this from sibling search tools at a high level (sessions vs memories/findings), though it does not explicitly name or differentiate any alternative.

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 intended use is implied by 'Search across all sessions by message content' and the FTS5 reference, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling search tools like search_memory, search_findings, or query_memory. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use cases are provided.

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