search_history

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

No annotations provided; description only states it searches and returns results. No disclosure of read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. For a search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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: first defines action and output, second gives usage instructions. Perfectly front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence is valuable.

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?

Adequate for a search tool with output schema (present, so return value details covered). Lacks parameter descriptions and pagination guidance, but covers the key integration point (history_index). Could be more complete.

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 0%; description only mentions regex (implied) and history_index (returned, not parameter). No explanation of count (pagination size) or offset (page offset). Adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names 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 verb 'Search', resource 'Burp proxy history', and method 'with a regex'. Differentiates from siblings like list_history and inspect_history_entry by specifying regex search and returning compact list with history_index. Also explains how history_index feeds into other tools.

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 for regex-based searches and hints at integration with other tools via history_index. However, no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like inspect_history_entry or list_history.

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