search_worklogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses grep-like behavior and returns matches with context but does not mention potential performance implications of a full scan, auth requirements, or any destructive actions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two short paragraphs: one explaining the tool's function and another listing parameters and returns. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 simple inputs (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It mentions the return is a dict with matched entries, though details on context line count or format are missing. Mostly complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds critical semantics: it specifies that the query parameter is plain text and not a regular expression. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 that the tool searches past Markdown log files and extracts entries related to a keyword using plain text matching (grep-like). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool save_worklog, which saves entries, making the purpose specific and 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 implies when to use this tool (searching log files for keywords) and the sibling tool save_worklog provides context for when to save instead. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives.

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