search_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Semantic search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or result ranking. The behavior remains largely opaque.

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 extremely concise, using only five words, which is efficient but under-specified. It is a phrase rather than a complete sentence, and while it is not bloated, it lacks crucial context that would make the brevity effective.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what 'memories' are, how semantic search works, what the importance score means, or how results are ordered. A 1 is appropriate because the description leaves almost all contextual information to be inferred.

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 100%, so all four parameters (query, limit, category, minImportance) are already documented with descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning, but the schema fully covers the parameters, warranting 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 'Semantic search in memories' clearly identifies a search action on a 'memories' resource, which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like search_facts or unified_search, as 'memories' is vague and the difference between semantic search and other search approaches is not explained.

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 search_memories versus alternative tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection among the sibling search tools.

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