Search Dialogue Threads

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing that it searches across titles, tags, and message content, and returns thread summaries rather than full messages. This gives useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not cover edge cases like pagination or case sensitivity.

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 appropriately concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and followed by a clean Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the search scope, the parameters, and the return type (array of thread summaries). It is complete enough for most use cases, though it omits details like summary structure or error behavior.

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 100%, meaning the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter meanings without adding extra detail, such as formatting, constraints, or interplay between parameters, so it stays at the baseline.

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 it searches across thread titles, tags, and message content, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dialogue_list_threads (which likely lists without searching) and dialogue_read_thread (which reads a single thread), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies that it can search within a specific project or across all projects, providing clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and behavior are sufficiently clear for most search scenarios.

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