opencode_search_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the core behavior—semantic search and returning relevant memories—but does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, or how results are ordered or scored. The word 'search' implies non-destructive behavior, but no reassurance or additional context is given.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Semantic search over everything the agent has remembered') and a clear statement of what it returns. Every clause contributes to understanding with no redundant or tangential information.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and return type ('Returns the most relevant memories for a query'). It could benefit from a note distinguishing it from `opencode_recall_context` or a hint about the output format, but the core information is present.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (`query` and `limit`) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as query syntax or limit constraints, so it does not exceed the schema's coverage.

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 semantic search over the agent's memories, using a specific verb ('search') and resource ('memories'). It returns the most relevant memories for a query, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `opencode_recall_context`, which may also retrieve memories.

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 the tool is for querying stored memories to find relevant results, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like `opencode_recall_context`. There are no stated exclusions or context-based recommendations, leaving selection to inference.

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