memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation and the 'use before exploring' hint is useful, but the description does not disclose details like whether results are limited to verified memories by default, how status filters interact, or what the return shape is.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and purpose, then add a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 query tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description captures the essential purpose and usage context. It lacks a note about the result format or default verification scope, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds context by listing some memory kinds, but this mostly duplicates the enum values already present in the schema, so no significant new parameter meaning is added.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('the repo's verified memory'), and enumerates the memory kinds it can retrieve. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_write, memory_verify, and memory_get_for_files.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance: 'Use BEFORE exploring the codebase — past sessions may already know the answer.' It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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