Longhand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the search functionality and scope ('across all sessions'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format (beyond 'max output characters'), or error handling. While it adds value by clarifying the search behavior, it does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations in a tool with multiple parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and provide a practical example. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying purpose and usage without unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the search scope and query types well, but without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and return values. This is adequate for a search tool but could be more comprehensive to fully guide an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'query' parameter's flexibility ('commit message substring, hash prefix, or branch name'), which aligns with the schema, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. With 5 parameters and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description's reinforcement of parameter usage slightly enhances understanding.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('search across all sessions for git commits matching a query') and resources ('git commits'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the search scope ('across all sessions') and query types ('commit message, hash prefix, or branch name'). The example use case ('find that commit where we fixed the parser') further clarifies its utility.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Great for 'find that commit where we fixed the parser' queries'), indicating it's suited for locating specific commits based on various criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'get_session_commits' might be for a specific session), leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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