history_session_search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds useful context beyond them: results are a bounded, ranked page rather than an exhaustive dump. It does not explain pagination mechanics via cursor, but the bounded-return trait is a genuine addition.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the routing hint follows. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

No output schema and only 17% parameter coverage, yet the description specifies the return shape (ranked locations and snippets) and the safety profile is fully carried by annotations. The gap is the five undocumented scope/paging parameters, which leaves an agent guessing about which directories get searched.

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 only 17% (just the query param), so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It implies keyword querying and a bounded page (limit/cursor) but says nothing about history_dir, project_root, or workspace_root, which determine which archives are actually searched.

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 (lossless history archives), plus the search mechanics (deterministic keywords, ranked locations and snippets). It names sibling history_session_read and clarifies the boundary between them, so an agent can distinguish this from alternatives.

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?

Explicitly routes to history_session_read when exact source text is needed, which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool for retrieval. However it gives no guidance on when this search is preferable to other search-like siblings (e.g., ui_search) and no prerequisites.

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