list_searches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what information is returned (search IDs, types, patterns, status, runtime) and the management use case, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 reasonably concise with 4 sentences, but includes unnecessary marketing language: 'This command can be referenced as "DC: ..." or "use Desktop Commander to ..." in your instructions.' This doesn't add value for AI agent tool selection and could be removed. The core information is front-loaded but diluted by the final sentence.

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 read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned and the management use case. However, it doesn't explain the return format structure or any limitations (like maximum results), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List all active searches' with specific details about what information is shown (IDs, types, patterns, status, runtime). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Similar to list_sessions for terminal processes', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar listing tools like list_directory or list_processes.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for managing multiple concurrent searches' and references sibling tool list_sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_more_search_results or stop_search, nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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