Search memories

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does so effectively by disclosing that memories are re-ranked by similarity, importance, recency, and reinforcement, and that recalled memories are reinforced—a non-obvious side effect. It does not mention return format or error behavior, but the disclosed ranking and reinforcement are strong behavioral details.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that packs in the key purpose, technical approach, ranking factors, and side-effect without filler. It is front-loaded and every element contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must serve as the primary context source. It covers purpose, ranking behavior, and the reinforcement side-effect, but it does not explain what the search returns or how this relates to memory_recall_context. This leaves some gaps given the absence of other structured context.

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 input schema already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (k and recencyDays). The overall description mentions "recency," which loosely connects to the recencyDays parameter, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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 identifies the tool as performing semantic search over a user's memories, with specific details about the ranking mechanism (similarity, importance, recency, and reinforcement). This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_write or memory_forget, which are clearly write/delete operations, and from memory_recall_context, which is likely a different retrieval approach.

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 implies that this tool is for semantic search scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling memory_recall_context. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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