search_cli_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the search scope and parameter effects but does not mention side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. It adds some value but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage note, parameter list, and return description. It is concise, though the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Search Kiro CLI conversation history only.' and 'Use this to find...').

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most needed context: parameter meanings, defaults, and a basic return description. Missing details include pagination behavior (offset interaction with max_results) and result ordering, but it is largely sufficient for a search tool.

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 0%, yet the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter (query, after, before, etc.) with defaults and brief descriptions. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 it searches 'Kiro CLI conversation history only,' using strong verbs and resource specificity. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_global_history by narrowing to CLI conversations.

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 advises using this tool for Kiro CLI sessions, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools, though sibling names are available.

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