find_sessions_by_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the search mechanism (patch records and file mentions) and the performance characteristic (<50ms). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences provide supplementary details about search scope and performance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description, combined with the input schema, output schema, and annotations, provides a complete picture for a tool of this complexity. It clarifies what the tool searches, mentions performance, and the schema covers parameter details. The only minor gap is not describing the return structure, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions that file_path can be a basename (e.g., 'webhook_queue.py') but this is also in the schema's example. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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's function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('sessions that modified or mentioned a specific file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sessions by focusing on file-based filtering. The dual search modes (patch records and mentions) further clarify its scope.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when looking for sessions related to a specific file. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know to use this for file-based searches rather than general session listing or history search.

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