Search the project's observed work-history index for prior task context, filter by target file, and limit returned JSON characters without reading project files.
检索本项目已观察的工作历史索引；不是正式解法或执行授权。可按目标文件筛选，默认3000个JSON正文字符，不读取项目文件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| file_path | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| context_handle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose two real traits — it does not read project files, and JSON bodies are truncated to 3000 characters by default. It says nothing about whether the index is read-only, what the returned records look like, or any limits beyond the character budget.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the scope caveat and the two useful defaults. Dense and waste-free, though the semicolon-chained style packs distinct points together.
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?
Five optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations — the description covers only two of the parameters and gives no sense of result shape or how query/limit/context_handle interact. An agent could call it, but not confidently or correctly on the first attempt.
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 every one of the 5 parameters is undocumented in the schema. The description clarifies only file_path filtering and the default for max_chars; query, limit, and context_handle receive no meaning at all, which is a serious gap for a 0%-coverage tool.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (检索工作历史索引) and adds a negative scope note (不是正式解法或执行授权) that distinguishes it from solution/knowledge tools. It does not name sibling tools such as knowledge_search or work_memory_read, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 phrase '不是正式解法或执行授权' tells the agent what the results are not to be used for, which is useful guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over knowledge_search or work_memory_read, and the absence of any positive trigger context leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.