search_screen_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context: results are untrusted observed data and are returned newest first. This is useful behavioral information beyond the schema, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: search scope, ordering, and trustworthiness of results. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Core behavior, ordering, and data trustworthiness are covered, and annotations handle the safety profile. However, with no output schema and no parameter semantics, the agent must infer the meaning of limit, since_minutes, and the exact structure of a matching frame.

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 description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not: query, limit, and since_minutes are left to their names and defaults. The only indirect hint is that 'full-text search' implies the query parameter, which is insufficient.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: full-text search over OCR text of previously captured windows. It also states the result ordering (newest first) and clearly differentiates this from the sibling retrieval tools by scoping it to OCR screen 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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: when an agent needs to find previously observed screen text via full-text search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_context_around or get_recent_activity, nor state 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.