memory_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions 'verified memory' which hints at a default scope but is ambiguous given the status filter exists. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe default filtering behavior, but the verb 'search' implies non-destructive operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose and usage priority but does not mention return format, pagination, or availability of filters. It is adequate for high-level understanding but leaves details to the schema and inference.

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 80%, and the description adds examples of memory kinds (decisions, conventions, gotchas) which map to some enum values, giving context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention the limit parameter or clarify the default behavior of status/paths, so it does not fully compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 searches the repo's verified memory for specific types of knowledge (decisions, conventions, gotchas, etc.). The verb 'search' and resource 'repo's verified memory' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like memory_get_for_files, which implies a broader query capability.

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 explicitly advises using the tool BEFORE exploring the codebase, providing a clear context for when it should be used. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, only a general priority.

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