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 and excels: it discloses the important caveat that the score is a fused ranking score, not cosine similarity, and that the tool is read-only but may fire stored reminders as a side effect. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that materially affect interpretation and safety.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core operation, the second clarifies output semantics, and the third covers side effects and usage timing. It is front-loaded and free of 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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential high-level context: hybrid retrieval, ranked results, score interpretation, side effects, and recommended usage scenarios. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity, but the extensive schema compensates for most gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only general context about hybrid relevance and temporal filtering, but does not explain specific parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It neither detracts from nor significantly enhances the schema's parameter documentation.

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 indexed memories using hybrid relevance (vector + BM25 + reranking) and returns ranked results with temporal filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like store_memory, auto_capture, and memory_drill_down by naming the specific retrieval behavior and output shape.

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?

It provides concrete guidance on when to use the tool: proactively at task start, when debugging, writing, or when the user references past work. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of the full exclusionary guidance that would earn a 5.

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