searchall

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the search operates against the 'local sync mirror' rather than a live server, hinting at possible staleness or offline behavior. However, it omits read-only nature, result format, pagination, and any limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to conveying the search scope.

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 zero-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable. It does not indicate what results look like, how they are ordered, whether they are paginated, or how they differ from the sibling 'search' tool, leaving clear gaps.

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 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys. The baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('all chats'), with a scoping qualifier ('local sync mirror') that distinguishes it from sibling search tools like 'search' and 'searchin'. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the 'all chats' scope implies a different span of search.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over the sibling 'search' or 'searchin' tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and one-line description alone.

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