search_transcripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that matching is semantic-similarity-based and that results include matched content plus session metadata for navigation, which is meaningful beyond the tool name. It does not discuss edge cases like result truncation, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. There is no filler or redundancy, and the core action appears immediately.

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 moderately simple search tool with a fully described parameter schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, matching mechanism, and return shape. Since there is no output schema, the mention of 'matched content with session metadata for navigation' is useful, though exact result fields are left unspecified.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details. The phrase 'using semantic similarity' adds useful context that the query is a natural-language semantic query, but this is only a modest improvement over the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Search through past Claude Code session transcripts') and a distinctive method ('semantic similarity'), making the resource and behavior clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_session_context, but the search-focused verb and scope leave little ambiguity.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'find past discussions, solutions, or context from previous coding sessions.' It tells an agent when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or directly route to the sibling tool.

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