memory_search_context

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does disclose that the tool returns instructions rather than performing the search directly. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, has any side effects, or what the instructions look like.

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 brief with three sentences, focusing on purpose, output, and argument. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids verbosity.

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 existence of an output schema, the description reasonably covers the basics. However, it fails to explain the intended workflow (searching and then using the instructions) or how it differs from other memory search tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds a clear explanation for the sole required parameter 'query', stating it's 'What to search for in cross-session memory.' This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 it searches memory for context before a task, distinguishing it as a pre-task memory retrieval tool. However, it also mentions returning instructions for calling another tool, which adds a layer of indirection that could confuse agents.

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?

Only minimal context is given ('before a task'), but no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling memory and search tools like 'remember', 'search_decisions', or 'search_thinking_patterns'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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