search_project_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it returns source citations and ambiguity diagnostics, and makes no model call, which tells the agent results are deterministic rather than LLM-generated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the search scope comes first and the return/no-model-call caveats follow. The phrasing is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('ambiguity diagnostics'), but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to summarize the return (citations plus ambiguity diagnostics). But for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, it leaves limit, include_history, and the semantics of the required 'question' parameter unexplained, which is a real gap 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it maps 'name or alias' to identity matching, 'scope' to scopes, 'validity' to as_of/known_at, and lexical mode to match_mode. It says nothing about limit, include_history, or what the required 'question' string actually accepts.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (reviewed structured memory) plus the axes it searches on (declared name or alias, scope, validity). It is clearly a lookup tool, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling project_memory or recall_project, so the agent must guess which search entry point to use.

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 clause 'Explicit lexical mode discovers text matches' implies when to choose match_mode=lexical over the default identity lookup, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no statement of when to use this tool instead of siblings like project_memory, project_memory_history, or recall_project, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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