whistle_sessions_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the filtering logic (by query/POST body params and response JSON fields) with examples, but does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., whether it returns full session data or just matches) or any side effects. This is a moderate level of 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 a single sentence with a colon and an illustrative example, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise with no waste.

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 there are 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and filtering dimensions but leaves gaps: it does not explain how multiple filters combine (AND/OR) or what the return data contains. This is acceptable but not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further guidance.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), including details like partial path matching. The description adds contextual examples but not new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 captured data using request parameter names or response JSON fields, with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whistle_sessions_list (listing sessions) and whistle_session_get (fetching a specific session), establishing a specific verb+resource+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 implies when to use it—when you need to find requests carrying a specific parameter (e.g., token) or responses containing a certain field (e.g., address). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer its use case.

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