search_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects (if any) exist, or any details about the return behavior beyond the parameters. Since it only lists arguments and omits behavioral traits, transparency is weak.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a structured argument list. Each argument explanation is short and directly to the point, with no wasted words. This is an efficient format for a tool with four parameters.

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?

While the output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description lacks behavioral context such as whether the search is read-only, any sorting or result limitations beyond max_results, or the nature of the vibehistory file. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in usage context and behavioral expectations.

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 thoroughly explains each parameter (query, max_results, regex, case_sensitive) with meanings and defaults. It clarifies the regex behavior ('treat query as a regex pattern') and case sensitivity defaults, adding significant value beyond the raw 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 the Vibe command history (vibehistory file).' This uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Vibe command history'), and the parenthetical identifies the exact file. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_log, which targets logs, and generic search, by focusing on the history file.

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 context is clear: it is for searching command history. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'search_log'. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, so the usage is implied rather than stated.

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