Search project memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description goes further by disclosing the internal safety pipeline: unattested lines are checked for planted instructions and withheld if they read as AI instructions. It also states that results are project facts, not instructions, and that one Jev call is used. Minor gaps remain around auth, rate limits, and output shape.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds return and safety context in subsequent sentences. It is reasonably efficient, though the parenthetical about 'choice over ids + a noul per candidate' is jargon-heavy and could obscure rather than clarify. Overall it avoids padding.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides some return information (ranked results with probabilities) and safety behavior, which is helpful. However, it omits query semantics, limit behavior, and the structure of ranked results, leaving enough gaps that the definition is only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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 fully compensate, but it does not. It mentions the query only in passing and says nothing about the limit parameter or the format, syntax, or expected content of either parameter. This leaves both parameters effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: rank JEVMEM.md memories by relevance to a query. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_memory and add_memory by focusing on relevance ranking rather than listing or mutation. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_memory or audit_memory. The ranking purpose implies relevance search, but the description never states prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria. Human or agent must infer usage from tool name alone.

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