search_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'hybrid keyword + semantic search' and filtering options, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with a brief opening line followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded and each line adds value. However, it could be slightly more concise (e.g., removing 'Args:' header for pure conciseness). Still, it is efficient and clear.

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 output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all 6 parameters thoroughly, including defaults and filters. For a search tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It provides clear, explanatory text for each parameter: 'Natural language search query', 'Maximum number of results to return (default: 10)', filter explanations with examples (e.g., 'whatsapp:printer_conspiracy'), and date formats with examples ('2026-01-01'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Search your personal memories using hybrid keyword + semantic search.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('personal memories'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_memory and various import/sync tools.

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 implicitly clarifies usage context by contrasting with sibling tools (add, import, sync), but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. No alternatives are named, but the purpose is clear enough for an AI agent to differentiate.

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