memory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that search is semantic (embedding-based), which is behavioral information beyond annotations. No contradictions, and it explains the search method.

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 front-loaded with the main action and purpose, followed by helpful usage guidance. The Args section is a bit redundant with the schema but maintains clarity. No unnecessary sentences.

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 read-only search tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and parameter meaning. It doesn't need to explain return values due to output schema.

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%, and the tool description repeats the same parameter descriptions from the schema (e.g., 'What you're looking for, in natural language'). It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding.

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 shared memory by meaning' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_get by emphasizing semantic search over listing or direct retrieval.

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 advises to call before starting work and to always search before writing, indicating primary use case. It also lists useful scenarios like finding prior decisions and avoiding duplication, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use.

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