memory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it uses semantic (embedding) search, not keywords. It does not mention potential limits (e.g., result relevance, performance) but is sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, followed by a paragraph on search method, usage guidance, and a bulleted Args section. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), and annotations covering read-only and idempotency, the description is complete. It covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter meanings, and behavioral details.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explains each parameter in plain language: 'q' as natural language query, 'project' with default behavior, 'tag' for filtering, 'limit' with default and max. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Search shared memory by meaning' and distinguishes itself from likely keyword-based sibling tools (memory_get, memory_list) by specifying semantic embedding search. The verb+resource is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call this before starting work' and 'Always search before writing: another agent may have already captured what you need.' It also lists use cases (finding prior decisions, avoiding duplication) which effectively tells the agent when to invoke this tool.

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