remote_session_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports regex' but does not explain how regex is applied, what the result format is, whether pagination is used, or any limitations. It also doesn't clarify whether the search spans all sessions or only a specific one, despite having a sessionId parameter. This is minimal disclosure for a search tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and avoids unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient while still conveying the main purpose.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It provides only a basic function statement and regex support, but lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and what the returned results look like. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially with many sibling tools.

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 100% parameter coverage with basic descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra context by mentioning 'command history and output' and 'regex,' which maps to the includeOutput and regex parameters, but it doesn't provide detailed semantics beyond the 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 purpose: 'Search through command history and output.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like remote_session_history or remote_blocks_search, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for use, or contrasts with sibling tools like remote_session_history or remote_blocks_search. The only implied hint is that it searches history and output, but this is not explicit usage guidance.

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