memory_vision_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the env-var/provider prerequisite, the input precedence (text > base64 > file ref), the registration requirement for file references, and the ranked return shape. It stops short of stating failure modes, rate limits, or what happens when no embeddings exist, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and prerequisites before routing advice. Slightly dense but every clause carries actionable information; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 5-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies prerequisites, input precedence, scoping, and the return contents (ranked image references with scores, session/observation IDs, and total candidates). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning: it defines the precedence order between queryText, queryImageBase64 and queryImageRef, and notes that sessionId narrows scope — semantics the schema does not encode.

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+resource ('Find stored image embeddings') and the two retrieval modes (text description or image similarity). It explicitly distinguishes itself from memory_smart_search, which handles textual observations, 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite (AGENTMEMORY_IMAGE_EMBEDDINGS=true and its image provider), the selection precedence among the three query inputs, the constraint that file references must be registered in the managed image store, and names the alternative tool for textual search. This is when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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