search_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the full-text search covers both user prompts and assistant responses, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and provides a parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place with zero 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?

With a simple 3-parameter schema, full parameter documentation, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description need only cover purpose and search scope. It does so completely. The lack of alternative guidance is already factored into usage_guidelines.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that the 'query' searches over user prompts and assistant responses, which is not specified in the parameter descriptions. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('past OpenCode conversations'), and specifies the scope ('full-text on user prompts and assistant responses'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sessions or get_session_detail, which are about listing or retrieving sessions rather than searching content.

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 its usage: when you need to find past conversations by content keywords. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among siblings (e.g., find_sessions_by_file for file-based search). No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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