Search Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', which implies a read operation, but it does not explain what memory records look like, whether results are paginated, whether all stored memories are included by default, or how quality filters affect results.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but slightly too sparse to be highly informative.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is not enough. It never states the default behavior when all optional filters are omitted, what 'review quality' means, or which sort options are supported.

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%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning for genre and loosely groups min_score/approved_only under 'review quality filters', while query, limit, sort_by, and their interactions remain unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('memory'), and mentions the main axes of filtering ('genre' and 'optional review quality filters'). It is clear enough to identify this as the retrieval counterpart to remember_song, though it never defines what 'memory' contains.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like review_songspec or remember_song. The description implies it is for searching saved memories but does not state a decision rule for selecting it.

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