remote_blocks_search

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the search covers command history and output, but fails to mention that the search defaults to the active session unless sessionId is provided (as indicated in the schema), nor does it clarify the read-only nature or result format. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's scope and side effects.

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 two short, direct sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then clarifies scope, making it efficient and easily skimmable.

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?

Despite a well-documented schema, the description omits important context: the default scope is the active session (per sessionId), there is no output schema to clarify return format, and no distinction from similar search tools. For a tool with many siblings, this is incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'command history and output' as the search target, but it does not elaborate on parameter behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource as 'command blocks' with scope 'command history and output'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remote_blocks_list (list) and remote_session_search (session-specific) through the phrase 'across blocks', though it does not explicitly name 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remote_session_search or remote_blocks_list. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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