search_ide_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The return value is only briefly mentioned.

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, front-loading the purpose, then listing parameters in a structured Args section. No unnecessary sentences, though the Args section could be more compact.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter meanings but lacks details on pagination behavior, response format, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, so the description adds value by listing all parameters with brief explanations and defaults. The descriptions (e.g., 'Filter to messages on/after this date (ISO 8601)') are adequate but not highly detailed.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Kiro IDE conversation history', and explicitly limits to IDE sessions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_cli_history.

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 usage for IDE history but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Context from sibling names helps but is not in the description itself.

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