chatlog_search

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

With no annotations, this description carries the burden. It discloses that search mode changes based on query presence (FTS5 vs. filter-only), but omits details on pagination, sorting, limits, return format, or error handling.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The key distinction is front-loaded. However, the brevity may sacrifice necessary detail for clarity.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only the core behavior but leaves many aspects (e.g., all optional parameters, response shape, defaults) unexplained.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions 'query' implicitly. Parameters like k, since, until, agent_id, etc., are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action (search) and resource (chat_log rows) and differentiates between behavior when query is non-empty (FTS5 keyword) and empty (filter-only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like chatlog_status and chatlog_write.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_search or files_search. The description only explains internal behavior but does not address selection criteria or prerequisites.

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