search_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions search modes but does not explain what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, performance implications, or authentication needs. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence (12 words) that communicates the core purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Search.' However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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 (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or how this tool fits among siblings like get_context. An AI agent would lack key context to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 function: searching for existing memories. It mentions the specific techniques (semantic or graph spreading activation), which helps clarify the scope. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_context, which might also involve retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description simply says 'search for existing memories,' which implies its use case, but fails to address when to choose this over get_context or other search-like operations. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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