search_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'search', which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, what data it returns, or any limitations (e.g., date range, scope). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action and subject. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, exhibiting no wasted words.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what it does and what to expect. It only says 'past ingestion/sync history', which is vague. It lacks details about the nature of the history, the output format, any filtering capabilities, or limitations. This is inadequate even for a simple tool because the agent has no idea what 'history' entails or how to leverage the tool effectively.

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 tool has zero declared parameters, and the schema's additionalProperties set to true allows arbitrary inputs. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none. However, it does not clarify what optional arguments might be accepted, but given the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Search past ingestion/sync history of the repository.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('history of ingestion/sync'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'symbol_search' or 'get_definition' which focus on code structure. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is minimal.

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