jp_lit_find_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states it searches sessions and implies a read operation, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, permissions needed, or any side effects. Contradictions: false.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous text. Efficiently communicates the core function.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown), so return value explanation is not required. However, the description lacks details on search behavior (e.g., pagination, ordering for limit) and does not mention if sessions are mutable or read-only. Adequate but gaps remain.

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. It explains that the query parameter can include topic, keywords, etc., but does not clarify the limit parameter's purpose or default behavior. Some value added, but incomplete.

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 specifies the tool searches past research sessions using topic, keywords, candidate titles, and notes. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jp_lit_list_sessions (which likely lists all sessions) by focusing on reuse of search 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 includes a usage hint: 'Use when you want to reuse past search history.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use.

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