search_global_history

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 describes the search behavior across all workspaces and details parameter defaults, but lacks disclosure on performance implications, rate limits, or error handling. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a usage context sentence, a bulleted list of parameters with defaults, and a return summary. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous content.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly and gives a brief return overview. It lacks details on result structure or edge cases, but is sufficient for a search tool with good defaults.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including acceptable values (e.g., ISO 8601 for dates), defaults, and purpose for each. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Search conversation history across ALL WORKSPACES', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_cli_history and search_project_history by emphasizing the global 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 advises using this tool for cross-project knowledge discovery, listing examples like user preferences and coding patterns. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the sibling tools' scopes provide implicit guidance on when not to use this tool.

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