search_memories

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses key behaviors: semantic search (not exact), output consolidation (fusion), and automatic inclusion of event memories. It omits details like error handling or pagination, but the output schema covers return structure.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('semantic search'), and adds a key behavioral detail in the second sentence. No unnecessary words.

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 6 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers essential behavior: search type, output format, and event scope. It lacks guidance on threshold or limit nuances, but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described). The description adds value by clarifying that event memories are searched automatically without needing explicit user_id. This extra context justifies a score above baseline 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 clearly states 'Semantic search over TeleMem memories' and specifies that it returns a consolidated text passage that fuses related memories. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like get_memories or get_memory, which focus on retrieval by ID or listing.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions that event memories are searched automatically, which hints at a use case, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. An agent must infer from the operation.

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