memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but it only mentions FTS5 search and snippet token count, which is insufficient. Critical details like whether deletion mutation can occur are omitted.

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 a single sentence with key information front-loaded, achieving maximal conciseness without waste.

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 no output schema, the description provides some context about return format (compact rows with snippets, ~60 tokens) but lacks full detail on row structure and fields. It is partially complete for a search tool.

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 75%, but the description adds minimal extra value: it restates FTS5 query syntax already in the schema. The undocumented 'type_filter' parameter is not explained, nor are default behaviors for missing optional parameters.

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 that this tool performs FTS5 search over memory observations and returns compact rows with snippets, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get or memory_save.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other memory-related tools or alternatives. The phrase 'Layer 2' is ambiguous and does not provide clear usage context.

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