zerodb_search_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a simple lookup or a more complex semantic search, what the response format looks like, or any performance characteristics like latency or result ordering. The mention of 'semantic similarity' is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality effectively.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'agent memory', how results are returned, what 'semantic similarity' means in practice, or how this differs from sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how the 'query' parameter interacts with 'semantic similarity' or clarifying the relationships between filtering parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Search') and resource ('agent memory') with the method ('using semantic similarity'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zerodb_search_vectors' or 'zerodb_get_context', which likely have overlapping search functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'zerodb_search_vectors' and 'zerodb_get_context' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other search or retrieval tools.

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