memory_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it discloses nothing about behavior beyond 'search' — no mention of whether results are ordered, whether scope affects behavior, what happens with empty queries, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap, though the lack of destructive intent is at least implied by the name and description.

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 short sentence with zero waste. It's minimal but appropriately concise. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than concise — the one sentence covers only the most basic purpose and provides no additional value.

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?

The schema is fully documented (100% coverage) and there is an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description for parameters and return values. However, given the large set of related search and memory siblings, the lack of differentiation guidance makes the description incomplete for tool selection confidence. The complexity is moderate but the description fails to address the ambiguity.

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 documents all 4 parameters (limit, query, scope, scope_id). The description adds no parameter meaning itself. The schema already describes each parameter reasonably, including the scope_id default inference behavior. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies — the description adds nothing but the schema carries the load adequately.

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 'Search the memory store in AI Team OS' uses a clear verb (search) and resource (memory store), but is extremely generic. It doesn't specify what kinds of memories are searchable, what the search returns, or how it differs from the many sibling search tools like unified_search, ecosystem_search, or memory_list. The verb+resource is clear but the scope and distinction from siblings is absent.

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?

No guidance on when to use memory_search vs alternatives. There are several search-related siblings (unified_search, ecosystem_search, find_skill, context_resolve) and related memory tools (memory_list, memory_add, memory_invalidate), but the description provides zero context on when this specific search tool is appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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