search_memory

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

Discloses key behaviors: uses FTS5, results ranked by relevance and importance, increments retrieval_count on matched memories, returns specific fields, and returns empty array on no match. This is comprehensive given no annotations.

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?

Concise and well-structured (~90 words), each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, ranking info, side effect, usage, return structure, and empty case. No 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?

Covers all essential aspects: search mechanism, ranking criteria, side effect (increment retrieval_count), return fields, and empty result handling. No output schema but description adequately describes return structure.

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 already has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining query semantics ('Broader queries return more results') and limit behavior ('Results are ranked by relevance and importance before truncation').

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 performs a full-text search on stored memories using SQLite FTS5, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_memories (which likely lists all memories) and other CRUD tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use at session start to load relevant context, or mid-session to recall specific information.' While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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