search_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no permission requirements, no result ordering, no pagination behavior despite a limit param, and no note that inactive memories are excluded by default (include_inactive=false). It is a read-style search, but that must be inferred from the verb alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding that leads with the query modes. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 5-parameter tool with no other documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits behavior an agent needs: the default exclusion of inactive memories, how limit affects results, and how tags and phrase combine when both are supplied. For a search tool with five params and zero schema coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it clarifies that tags should be 'exact' and limited to 1-3, and that phrase is free-text, which adds real meaning. But limit, project_path, and especially include_inactive (whose default silently drops inactive memories) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a clear verb (search) and the two input modes it accepts (1-3 exact tags, broad free-text phrase, or both), which is specific enough for an agent to know what the tool retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_file_context, which could also surface related content, so it stops short of a 5.

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 says how to query but never when to choose this tool over get_file_context, nor any exclusion or precondition. The only implied guidance is the tag-vs-phrase dichotomy, which is a mechanics hint rather than usage routing.

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