search_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scans prose, tool I/O, and flatten sidecars, and returns match count and text preview. This provides meaningful behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the key action and filters, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's inputs and outputs. It explains what is scanned and the return elements (match count, text preview). However, given the lack of an output schema, more detail on preview structure could be useful. Nonetheless, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning that the search covers 'prose, tool I/O, and flatten sidecars' and returns 'match count and text preview,' which are not in the schema. This goes beyond mere parameter listing.

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: searching past sessions by keyword, date range, or git branch. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_sessions (plain listing) and flatten_session (flattening) by specifying the search functionality and the data sources scanned.

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 implies when to use the tool (for searching with filters), but does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given sibling names, the usage context is fairly clear.

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