search_project_memory

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds that searching is by query and type filters, but does not disclose default behavior like status='active' or limit semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and primary input efficiently.

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?

The presence of an output schema and rich annotations reduce the need to explain return values and safety. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the minimal description leaves the exact filter semantics and default behavior under-specified. It is adequate for basic invocation but has clear gaps.

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 the description must compensate. It names 'query' and vaguely mentions 'optional type filters', but does not enumerate or clarify the kind, status, or limit parameters, nor their defaults. This leaves most parameter meaning to inference.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search project memory', with a concrete mechanism ('by query string and optional type filters'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like write_project_memory and record_decision, which are write-oriented.

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 verb 'Search' implies this is the retrieval tool compared to write_project_memory, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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