recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds context about the fused search (meaning and keyword) and the browse mode, which is useful but not extensive.

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 concise with only two sentences, both front-loaded with key information. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the search function and describing the additional browse capability.

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?

Given the tool is read-only and has good annotations, the description covers the search and browse modes adequately. It lacks explanation of return values (no output schema), but the limit parameter implies pagination. A note about the default limit would be nice, but overall it's complete for a search tool.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, aside from reinforcing the browse mode behavior which is already in the kind parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool searches memories and notes by meaning and keyword (fused), scoped to the current project plus global items. It also describes an additional browse mode when kind is set without a query. This differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_read and notes_read, which are likely direct reads.

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 explicitly states that this is the single search entry point, implying it should be used for all searching needs. It describes the browse mode as an alternative usage, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives for direct reads.

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