search_memory

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the bar for transparency is lower. The description confirms it's a search (non-mutating) operation, consistent with the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when no matches are found, whether results are ordered, or anything about the result format, which would be useful given there's no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that packs in the tool's purpose and the semantic/episodic distinction. It's front-loaded with the core action ('search the persistent memory') followed by clarifying detail. No wasted words, though it could arguably say more about result behavior without becoming verbose.

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 search tool with readOnlyHint, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not rich context. It defines the two memory types, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe what the results look like (the return format is undocumented), and it doesn't mention pagination or ordering behavior. A search tool with a limit parameter would benefit from describing what happens with results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the semantic vs. episodic distinction and mentions keyword search, which aligns with the query parameter's 'keyword query' description. However, the description doesn't add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides—it clarifies what the two memory types mean ('learned experience' vs 'task history') but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 the verb (search), resource (persistent memory), and scope (keyword-based search). It also distinguishes between semantic memories and episodic records, which adds specificity. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_memory or save_memory, but the verbs alone make the distinction obvious.

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 this is for searching memory contents but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. The mention of both semantic and episodic types gives some context, but there's no statement about when to search one type versus the other, nor guidance about when to use run_agent_task or other task-related tools instead.

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