Search past Claude Code sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it searches across all projects, matches specific fields, and returns matching sessions with IDs. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or whether results are ordered, which are common behavioral traits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with key information, no superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place: first explains what the tool does, second provides usage guidance and return value.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what fields are searched, that it searches across all projects, and that it returns IDs. It could mention default limit or sorting, but overall sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% (both query and limit are described in the schema). The description reinforces the query parameter by mentioning 'by keyword' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 past Claude Code conversations by keyword, matching session titles, first messages, and project paths. It specifies the resource (conversations) and action (search), and distinguishes from siblings like list_sessions (which likely lists all) and search_in_session (which searches within a session).

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 states when to use: 'when the user refers to a past conversation by topic.' It provides an example. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives explicitly, the sibling tools imply differentiation, so it's clear enough.

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