memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Searches' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe return format, pagination, or behavior on empty results. The added context about persistent memory is useful but not comprehensive for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides practical usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 output schema, and moderate complexity. The description explains the overall purpose and typical use cases but does not describe return values, result ordering, or how parameters like tag and limit affect results. Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more detail would be warranted, but the core operation is simple enough that a 3 is fair.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific meaning (e.g., how fuzzy matching works or the effect of limit). This matches the baseline of 3 for full 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 states the tool 'Searches the persistent memory vault for stored knowledge,' specifying the verb and resource. It lists example content types (previous sessions, user preferences, project decisions), which clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vault_search or memory_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to recall information from previous sessions, user preferences, project decisions, and any previously stored context.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance of a 5.

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