search_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing the lightweight, fast, metadata-only nature of the search and approximate token cost per result. It could go further by specifying relevance ordering or match semantics, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for a search tool.

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 well-organized with clear headers, bulleted triggers, and a separate PARAMETERS section. The most important information is front-loaded, and every section contributes actionable guidance without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers call triggers, return type, cost, filtering strategy, parameter details, and the recommended follow-up tools. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters itself. It does: query is described as 'Search query,' limit gets a default and meaning, and filters gets a concrete JSON example including useful keys like tool_name and session_id. The SEARCH STRATEGY section adds practical keyword guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lightweight search of memory index' and 'Fast metadata search.' It clearly distinguishes itself from memory_timeline and get_observations by positioning itself as the first-pass filter that returns compact metadata, avoiding any tautology or ambiguity.

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 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section explicitly lists when to call this tool: to identify relevant memories, before fetching full observations, and when searching by tool name/type/session. It also provides a direct workflow comparison: use this FIRST, then use memory_timeline or get_observations for details.

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