memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains hybrid search, CQRS journal supplementation, and parameter effects (like include_global defaults). It does not mention destructive actions, auth needs, or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-only search tool.

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 somewhat lengthy (13 lines) but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then detailing parameters. It could be more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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 complexity (11 params, many filters) and existence of an output schema, the description is thorough. It covers all parameter behaviors, including edge cases (CQRS journal, default scoping for include_global). No major 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all 11 parameters, including defaults, effects (e.g., mode options, belief_status values), and behavior (e.g., shared_with_me). This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 'Search memories by semantic + FTS5 hybrid search' and 'The primary recall tool. Returns ranked memories matching the query.' This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like memory_recall and memory_recall_context.

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 identifies it as 'The primary recall tool' but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. It provides context for the CQRS journal behavior but lacks exclusion criteria.

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