search_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns relevant memories that match the search criteria,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'relevant' match. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences: one stating the purpose and one stating the return behavior. There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (a search function with 3 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The description mentions 'keywords or tags,' which aligns with the 'query' and 'tags' parameters in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search through stored memories using keywords or tags.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('stored memories'), and method ('using keywords or tags'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'get_memory_stats,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_memories' over 'list_memories' or other siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent with minimal usage guidance.

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