Search memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering behavior ('pinned first') and hints at persistence ('durable knowledge'). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe potential side effects, which is a gap for a search operation.

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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core behavior. Every word serves a purpose: 'Search saved learnings (pinned first)' states the main function, and the second sentence provides usage context. No wasted text.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of memory items with fields). The parameter schema is well-covered, and the ordering behavior is described, but the absence of return value information leaves the agent uncertain about how to use the results. Moderate completeness for a simple search 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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 4 parameters is already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the ordering hint or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Search') and the resource ('saved learnings'), and the parenthetical '(pinned first)' adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_save by focusing on recall rather than storage.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use to recall durable knowledge before drafting.' This implies when to use the tool (before drafting) and hints at its purpose (recall durable knowledge). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools.

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