search_cross_agent_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the breadth of data searched (four agents plus transcripts, plans, and file paths), which is genuine behavioral context, but it omits match semantics (substring vs. semantic), case sensitivity, result shape, and whether every agent is always indexed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by specifying what is searched and where.

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 simple read-only search with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers scope and inputs adequately but says nothing about what a result contains or how matches are grouped or ranked. An agent could call it correctly, but the return behavior is left entirely unspecified.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's restatement of acceptable query values (keyword, error message, filename) mildly reinforces the query parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (Search), a clear scope (across all 4 agents), and the exact content types searched (conversation transcripts, plans, modified file paths). It is easily distinguished from siblings like save_checkpoint_note or inject_session_to_agent, which perform entirely different operations.

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 implies when to use it by naming the search inputs (keyword, error message, filename), which conveys a retrieval scenario. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not-to-use conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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