search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the scope (across all projects), it doesn't describe what the search returns (snippets, full conversations, metadata), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are ordered/paginated. For a search tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 the complexity (search tool with 6 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or provide any parameter guidance. For a tool that presumably returns search results, the lack of output information is a significant gap.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions none of the 6 parameters, not even the required 'query' parameter. While the usage context implies a search query, it doesn't explain what format the query should take, what the project/branch parameters filter, or what the date/time parameters expect.

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 tool searches through past Claude Code conversations across all projects, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this search tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_context' or 'list_sessions' that might also retrieve conversation data.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'when the user asks about previous discussions, past decisions, or anything from a prior conversation.' This gives good guidance but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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