Search Reasoning Patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It returns reasoning memories, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, require authentication, or disclose any side effects. It adds some context but could be more explicit about behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a usage recommendation. Every sentence adds value, with the purpose stated upfront. No filler or redundant 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It could mention the return format or sorting, but it is sufficiently complete for a search tool. No output schema means return behavior is not expected to be described in detail.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example queries ('why did we choose PostgreSQL', 'auth approach rationale'), which clarifies the intended use of the 'query' parameter beyond the schema. However, it does not discuss 'limit' or 'scope' beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('reasoning traces') and clearly states the purpose: to understand 'WHY decisions were made'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on reasoning traces, differentiating it from general search (memorix_search) and other tools.

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 explicit usage scenarios ('when revisiting code, questioning a design decision, or looking for precedent'), giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools.

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