memory_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It reveals the internal search engine (FTS5) and result interpretation ('If empty, no memory needed'). Could mention that it is read-only, but the description sufficiently conveys search behavior.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, when to use, result interpretation, alternative tool. No filler, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Covers main use case, alternatives, and result interpretation. However, does not mention the memory_type parameter, which is required and important for correct usage. Output schema exists, so return details are covered.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (query, memory_type, limit) but the tool description adds only that the user's prompt should be passed as 'query'. With schema descriptions presumably high, the description adds minimal value beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Search past memories by content' and distinguishes from sibling memory_recall by specifying that it is for content search, while memory_recall is for browsing by tags or time window.

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?

Explicitly states when to call (user references past work, examples given), what to do with the query ('Pass the user's prompt as query'), and provides a condition for interpreting empty results. Also specifies when not to use and points to alternative memory_recall.

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