search_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals output-budget behavior and how detail levels change the returned content. It does not mention side effects, but 'search' implies a read operation, and the key truncation behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 three sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by concise detail-mode guidance. Every sentence adds useful information and there is 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?

For a search tool with full schema parameter coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: output size, detail-level trade-offs, and cluster-member visibility. It does not describe the result shape for empty results or explicitly address sibling alternatives, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, but the description adds practical meaning beyond the schema by explaining the trade-offs among compact, normal, and full detail, and by tying normal mode to the 6000-char output budget. This helps an agent choose the right parameter value.

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 verb and resource: search conversation rounds across all workspace session wires by keywords and optional date range. It is specific enough to convey the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'search' or 'recall'.

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 gives practical guidance on when to use each detail level: compact for a quick overview, normal as the default with a ~6000-char output budget, and full when complete match text and cluster members are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternative siblings.

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