memory_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that it performs semantic search, returns top matches with similarity score, and can be narrowed by category/project. It does not disclose any destructive aspects or side effects, but it is a read operation and sufficient for the tool's purpose.

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 very concise: two sentences with clear front-loading of the core action. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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, the description covers when to use, what it returns (top matches with similarity score), and how to narrow results. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to describe return format. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 adds meaning by explaining the query parameter for semantic search, the category parameter with examples ('code.connections' or 'code'), and the project parameter for narrowing. Limit is implied by 'top matches'. This provides conceptual clarity 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 'Retrieve relevant facts by meaning (semantic search)', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_store (store) and memory_categories (list categories) by focusing on retrieval via semantic search.

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 explicitly says 'Call this at the start of a task instead of relying on the compaction summary', providing a clear use case. It also mentions narrowing by category and project, but does not specify when not to use or list alternatives explicitly.

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