memory_search

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already conveys the safe read-only nature. The description adds transparency about the internal search mechanisms (exact match and semantic vector search), which is useful context beyond the annotation. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but this is not critical for a search tool.

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 a single, well-crafted sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's hybrid nature and key features, adhering to concise and front-loaded structure.

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 straightforward search tool, the description provides adequate context. It does not mention output format or pagination, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 descriptions cover query and top_k. The tool description adds significant semantic detail about the query parameter—specifically that it supports Chinese substring matching and semantic similarity—which enhances understanding of how the query is interpreted beyond the generic schema description.

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 performs a hybrid memory search using FTS5/trigram exact match and HNSW vector semantic search. It also mentions Chinese substring matching, making the purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like add, replace, or remove.

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 implies usage for searching memories but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No direct comparison with sibling tools is provided, though the search-oriented name and functionality make the use case reasonably clear.

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