search_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait: lexical (not semantic) matching, plus the fact that status and sources are preserved. It omits auth/permission needs and any result-limit or pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the prompt-injection caveat, then return shape and matching semantics. The brace-notation return list is dense but earns its place, and no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return keys and explains how to read a zero-match result, which is the most error-prone part of the tool. For a 2-parameter read tool the remaining gaps (parameter meanings, permissions) are real but modest.

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 0% for 2 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains what query should contain, that project_id is required, or how the two interact; only the result keys are described.

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?

"Search project knowledge" states a specific verb (search) and resource (project knowledge), which is enough to separate it from list_projects, get_handoff and propose_memory. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself rather than being told.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statement, but "zero matches with total > 0 means a different wording, not an empty memory" gives actionable retry guidance and the opening clause implies the lookup context. The usage envelope is implied rather than spelled out.

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