search

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: result annotations (match_source, fts_rank, vec_distance), candidate widening, keyword OR-ing, default active-only, embedding fallback, and snippet truncation with reference to get_memory for full records.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers multiple aspects. A minor consolidation of usage tips could be tighter, but overall effective with minimal fluff.

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 (hybrid search, multiple parameters, output schema exists), the description is comprehensive: covers result fields, fallback, type filters, default behavior, and sibling alternative. No gaps identified.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully: explains type values (note, reasoning, etc.), query behavior (paraphrases OR'd), domain as part of search scope, and mentions limit default implicitly. Adds value beyond 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 it performs hybrid search over memory content, tags, and domain using BM25 and vectors. It distinguishes from sibling recall by noting recall is sugar for search(type='note').

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 usage tips like multiple space-separated paraphrases being OR'd, only active memories by default, and fallback to keyword-only. It does not explicitly list exclusion cases but offers clear context for appropriate use.

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