memory_smart_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it discloses a retention side effect ('Search and expansion record retention access unless trackAccess=false'), the precedence rule ('expansion takes precedence over query'), and truncation reporting. These are real behavioral traits not visible in the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (expansion, escape hatch, side effect, alternative). It is dense and slightly packed, but there is no filler.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers routing, expansion behavior, side effects, and the cross-project escape hatch. Return format is only sketched ('compact results with observation IDs'), which is the one remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond it by stating the precedence of expandIds over query and quantifying expansion ('up to 20 full observations'). The '*' semantics for project/agentId and the retention meaning of trackAccess are largely echoed from the 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('explicit project') and adds the ranking mechanism ('hybrid keyword/semantic ranking') plus the return shape ('compact results with observation IDs'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_recall, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (memory_recall) and the exact condition that selects it ('when you need full, compact or narrative results in one call'). It also gives the when-to-use rule for the '*' cross-project escape hatch, leaving little to inference.

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