Search memories

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

The description discloses the return format ('Returns results with id, title and url') and the behavior when no results are found (tell the user and offer to save with cortex_write). This aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and provides transparency beyond basic annotations.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, then return behavior, and finally the empty-result fallback. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers what to expect (results with id, title, url) and how to handle the case of no results. It also mentions the related tool (cortex_write) for the follow-up action, making the context complete for an agent.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'query' with a description ('Natural language query'), and the tool description does not add significant extra meaning to the parameter itself. It mentions the purpose but not specific query formatting or examples, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search the user's persistent memory (Cortex)'. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource. The context about calling it at the start of conversations further clarifies its role.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Call it at the start of every conversation and before any answer that depends on who the user is or on what you did together before'. It also provides guidance on what to do when no results are returned, referencing cortex_write.

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