memory_lesson_search

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 discloses key behavioral traits: similarity-based retrieval, polarities with known dead-ends, verbose toggle for full provenance, and compact default entries. Also specifies return fields. This is strong but not exhaustive (e.g., no error behavior or rate limits).

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?

Description is three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then return format. No fluff or redundant repetition, every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers purpose, when to use, polarity caveat, verbose behavior, and return shape. With only 3 parameters and an output schema present, this is nearly complete. It could add more on top_k behavior or similarity mechanics, but overall strong.

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 explains verbose meaningfully ('verbose=True for full provenance metadata, default entries are compact'), but query and top_k remain self-explanatory from their names and defaults without additional semantic detail. Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states specific action 'Search learned lessons (procedural memory) by similarity to the task at hand', distinguishing it from sibling memory tools that deal with facts, episodes, or storage. The verb 'search' and resource 'learned lessons' are precise and useful.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call at the START of a task and warns to heed negative polarity entries as dead-ends. However, it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or provide explicit alternatives, so it lacks exclusion criteria.

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