search_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool 'searches' content but does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only, whether it modifies memories, or how results are returned. Though the action implies non-destructive behavior, that is not stated, and the description lacks details about pagination, ranking, or output format.

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 a clear purpose sentence, then expands with use cases and trigger words. While the trigger word list is somewhat verbose, it serves practical guidance for deciding when to invoke the tool. Overall, it is efficient and not overly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description should cover return behavior, but it does not mention what the tool returns or how results are presented. The usage context is well covered, but the lack of return format and any limitations (e.g., max limit) leaves gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but since the schema already documents each parameter fully (query, limit, source, file_type), this is adequate.

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 the tool searches a learned knowledge base, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like embed_file (add content), list_memories (list memories), and forget_file (delete) by focusing on 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 provides a clear when-to-use list covering many scenarios (finding previous content, historical info, saved files, discussions, code, documents) and even gives trigger words. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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