search_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the searchable corpus (everything ever watched), the modalities searched, and what each hit contains. It omits cost/latency expectations and result ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the when-to-use rule, then a compact args block. Every line carries information needed given the bare schema, though the args section could be marginally tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly explains the return fields, and it covers all three parameters. Gaps remain around the meaning of the 'note' kind and defaults/pagination, but nothing prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains query is language-agnostic, gives the limit range (1-50), and enumerates kind values with 'speech' and 'onscreen' glossed. It leaves 'note' unexplained and omits the default for limit and kind.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search everything crv has ever watched') scoped to both spoken words and on-screen text, and explicitly states the return shape (video, timestamp, matching line). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_transcript and watch_video.

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?

It names the alternative tool ('use this instead of watch_video') and gives two concrete triggering conditions: when the answer may already be on disk, or when the question spans several videos, including an example query. No inference is left to the agent.

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