Search prompt history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtered scope (kind='promp'), that results are timestamped, and that snippets are truncated to 200 characters. This exceeds a bare 'Search history' statement, though it stops short of noting ordering, case sensitivity, or lack of side effects.

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 entire description is two efficient clauses that each add value: the first states the action and scope, and the second clarifies the return format. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what comes back (timestamped snippets truncated to 200 chars), and the schema covers input constraints. Missing details like ordering are minor for this simple search use case.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of keyword search but does not elaborate on the limit parameter or its interaction with results; the schema already documents query and limit adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the exact resource ('past user prompts'), and adds a distinguishing technical detail (kind='prompt'). It also describes the result shape (timestamped snippets truncated to 200 chars), making it easy to tell apart from broader memory-retrieval siblings like recall or get_recent_interactions.

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 scope is clear—use this to search past user prompts by keyword—but it is stated as a capability rather than explicit routing guidance. No when-not conditions or alternative tools are named, so an agent must infer when this should be chosen over sibling retrieval tools.

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