Search memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that results are ranked and scored, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only and non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites. For a search tool, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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 main purpose. Every phrase adds value: the keyword search scope, the memory categories searched, and the ranked result output. No redundancy or filler.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overall picture but lacks critical context. It does not mention how to refine searches (using types, minImportance, workspacePath), nor does it clarify what 'scores' represent or whether results are restricted to the current workspace. The description is adequate but incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 60% (query, types, workspacePath are described; limit and minImportance are not). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the parameters lacking descriptions. The meaning of limit and minImportance is left entirely to their names, which may not be self-explanatory.

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 a specific verb ('keyword search') and defines the exact scope (memories, tasks, decisions, handoffs, session summaries, project context), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_memory or get_decisions. The addition of 'returns ranked results with scores' clarifies the search nature.

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 this tool is used for searching across memory types, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like get_memory (direct retrieval) or get_project_context. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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