memory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating that results are 'hints to verify' and that the tool does not substitute for a full repository search. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the reliability of the output.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and a behavioral caveat. Every clause adds value: 'Use for code/doc search' (purpose), 'returns hints to verify' (behavior), and 'never replaces a repository search' (limitation). No wasted words.

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 presence of 2 well-documented parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and a key limitation. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gap: no explicit mention of how this differs from memory_recall siblings, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and k) with descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning specific to the parameters; it only mentions 'code/doc search' which indirectly implies the query type, but that is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Use for code/doc search'. It distinguishes itself from a repository search by saying it 'never replaces a repository search', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling memory tools like memory_recall or memory_temporal_recall. Still, the core purpose is clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context ('Use for code/doc search') and a when-not-to-use ('never replaces a repository search'). However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of the full 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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