Chercher dans les épisodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful details: searching session summaries, listing recent episodes when no query is given, and applying a strict threshold comparable to memory search. It does not explain the return format or sort order, but the read-only nature is implied by 'search.'

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, examples, no-query behavior, and threshold context. Every phrase adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, usage examples, and a notable behavioral nuance. It could mention the exact return shape or pagination, but the examples and threshold note make it reasonably complete.

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 67%: query and project have meaningful descriptions, while limit is only typed. The description text does not add much beyond the schema, though it references the query behavior contextually. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 through session summaries, calling it the temporal layer, which distinguishes it from the sibling memory_search. It also provides concrete example questions, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 examples ('what did we do last week?', 'what did we talk about on this project?') indicate when to use the tool. It also notes that omitting the query lists recent episodes, and that the same strict threshold as memory search applies, giving helpful context. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it.

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