chatlog_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 FTS5 vs filter mode based on query emptiness but omits other behaviors like result limits, pagination, sorting, or side effects (presumably read-only). There is no mention of how parameters like k, since, until interact.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main functional purpose. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and usage. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how filters combine.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter's role in switching modes but leaves all other parameters (k, since, until, etc.) unexplained beyond their schema titles and defaults.

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?

Clearly states it searches chat_log rows and distinguishes between full-text search (FTS5) when query is non-empty and filter-only when empty. This differentiates it from siblings like chatlog_status or 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?

Implies usage: use keyword search when query is non-empty, otherwise it filters. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like memory_search or chatlog_status, nor exclusions or prerequisites.

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