memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: semantic search, ranking, and fallback to keyword search. This covers dependency and degradation well, though it could explicitly state read-only nature.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds behavioral detail. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

For a search tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and fallback. Could detail return format, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with param descriptions already explaining each field. The main description adds no extra parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 semantic search across all memories and journal entries, with results ranked by meaning-similarity. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_journal (journal-specific), memory_recent (recent entries), and recall (another 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 implies use when semantic search is needed and mentions fallback to keyword search if Ollama unavailable. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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