Search Sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that search operates on local CLI session titles and messages, but it does not disclose matching behavior, result limits, or other runtime characteristics beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and scope without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is adequately complete: it names the resource, scope, and search target. It does not discuss return values or when to use alternatives, but those gaps are partially mitigated by the output schema and sibling context.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the parameter surface is mostly well-documented. The description adds valuable meaning for the required 'query' parameter by stating that it searches session titles and messages, which is more specific than the schema's generic 'Search query.'

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 a clear resource ('local Cloudeval CLI session titles and messages'), making the tool's scope unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sessions_list and sessions_get by focusing on search over titles and messages rather than plain listing or retrieval.

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 a search use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose sessions_search over sibling tools such as sessions_list or sessions_get. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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