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 behavioral burden. It hints that results are 'compact' facts and snippets, which is useful, but says nothing about safety/read-only semantics, result ordering or ranking, permissions, or what happens with include_history — significant gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One tight sentence with the purpose and the efficiency benefit front-loaded, and no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but the single sentence itself earns its place.

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 four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the searchable kinds, history semantics, and roughly what results look like. It covers only the top-level purpose, leaving an agent unable to use 'kind' or 'include_history' 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 0% across four parameters (query, kind, limit, include_history). The description only vaguely gestures at what is searched; it never explains what values 'kind' accepts, what 'limit' defaults mean in practice, or what 'include_history' changes. It adds little meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Specific verb ('search') plus the resource it searches ('compact graph facts and Markdown snippets'), and it implicitly contrasts with retrieval tools by noting it avoids loading the whole vault. It does not name any sibling (get_memory, remember, etc.) directly, so differentiation is clear but not explicit.

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 phrase 'without loading the whole memory vault' implies a use case: prefer this over a full retrieval when looking for something specific. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when get_memory or the other memory siblings would be preferred.

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