memory_search

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description compensates by disclosing that the tool is a pure read operation, uses SQLite FTS, and has sub-100ms performance. This gives the agent full transparency into the tool's behavior.

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 clear sections, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return format, ranking, and performance characteristics. No additional information is needed 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that query is a substring or FTS expression, must be non-empty, and limit has a range of 1-100 with a default of 20. This helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 it performs full-text substring search over stored memory values and returns ranked entries with key, value, tag, and score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is for substring search, not exact-key or semantic search.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (when exact key is unknown but substring of value or tag is known) and when not to use it (for exact-key lookup or true semantic similarity), providing alternative tools memory_recall and memory_semantic_search.

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