Search memories

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that results are returned as one consolidated passage and that shared event memories are included automatically. No contradiction with annotations; the read-only nature is consistent.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, output behavior, and automatic event inclusion. No waste or redundancy.

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 output schema exists and annotations declare read-only, the description covers the core functionality, fusion behavior, and event handling. It does not detail scoping interactions (run_id, user_id, agent_id) but those are in the schema. This is sufficient for a 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds little beyond implying 'query' is natural-language via 'Semantic search', which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the param documentation burden.

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' with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('memories'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memories and memory_history by highlighting semantic search and the fused-passage output.

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 implies usage for semantic retrieval, contrasting with other memory tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The note about shared event memories being searched automatically adds a usage-relevant detail. No exclusions are provided, so it earns a 4.

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