jp_lit_find_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and does not modify sessions or cache, which is sufficient for a search tool. Lacks mention of any other behavioral traits like rate limits, but none are expected for a simple search.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a comparison to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral safety (read-only), and alternative tool, making it fully adequate for agent decision-making.

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 100% (both parameters documented). The description adds the context that the query matches against 'subject, keywords, candidate titles, and notes', which is already partially in the schema. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, so a baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'read-only' and specifies that the tool searches past sessions by topic, keyword, candidate titles, and notes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool jp_lit_list_sessions by describing a different use case (known search term vs. browsing).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you know the search term and want to reuse past exploration history') and when not to ('if you don't remember the search term or want inventory in newest order, use jp_lit_list_sessions'). This provides clear guidance for the agent.

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