search_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns relevant episodes and is scoped; it doesn't mention modifications, so it's implied read-only. No contradictions, and it adequately describes behavior for a search tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given an output schema exists (signal: true), the description need not detail return values. It covers key inputs, scoping, and source context (ingestion/remember). Minor gap: no mention of result limit or ordering.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains 'query', 'project_id', and 'include_profile' but does not detail 'top_k' (only default is 5). This adds partial meaning but leaves a parameter under-specified.

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 it searches local EverOS memory (past conversations and facts) and returns relevant episodes for a query, with specific scoping and profile options. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'list_memories' and 'remember'.

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 when to use this tool (searching past data) versus siblings (listing or remembering), and explains scoping and profile inclusion. However, it lacks explicit 'use this when' or direct comparisons to alternatives.

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