memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by listing strategy and sources options. However, it fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or returns paginated results. The return format or error handling is not addressed.

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 concise with a single opening sentence and a structured Args block. No redundant text, but the Args block could be slightly integrated. Still efficient.

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, the description explains all parameters but omits return value details, such as the format of results, ranking, or pagination. Adequate for usage but not fully complete for a search tool.

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?

The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explicitly documenting each parameter in the Args block, including defaults and valid values for strategy and sources. This adds significant meaning beyond the input 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 performs 'Hybrid search across RAG + Wiki' with strategy selection, providing a specific verb (search) and resource. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like memory_recall or memory_episode_recall.

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 implies usage for searching across RAG and Wiki but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No when-not or sibling comparisons are provided.

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