search_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals supported filter syntax and date parsing rules (relative and ISO), which adds useful context. However, it does not describe the return format, sorting, pagination, or any side effects, leaving the agent partially uncertain about what to expect.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and syntax details in the second. No wasted words, information density is high, and the structure front-loads the main verb and object.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide adequate context. It covers query syntax well but omits details about return values, how limit and include_context affect results, and when to use this over get_session_summary. This gap prevents full autonomy for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches the meaning of the query parameter by detailing filter syntax (project:, before:, after:, tool:) and date formats. This goes beyond the schema's example and clarifies how to construct complex queries, adding direct value.

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 states the exact function: 'Search past Claude Code conversations.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_solutions or get_session_summary, which target different content. No ambiguity.

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 explains supported filter syntax but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, such as when needing a summarized session or searching for solutions. No when-to-use recommendations are provided.

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