Search the JOURNAL by keyword (case-insensitive) and return the most recent matching entries. Use it to retrieve relevant long-term memories stored as local files.
在 JOURNAL 里搜索关键词（大小写不敏感），返回最近匹配的若干条。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It adds two useful traits (case-insensitive matching and recent-match ordering), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions it needs, or how the limit affects results.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action, scope, case sensitivity, and return behavior. It is concise and easy to scan, though its terseness contributes to the missing parameter and usage details.
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?
The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete for a search tool: it does not explain the limit parameter, safety profile, or relationship to sibling memory operations.
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 compensate for both parameters. It clarifies the query as a keyword search, but the limit parameter is only vaguely implied by '若干条' and its default of 20 is not explained.
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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (JOURNAL), with case-insensitive keyword matching and recent-match return semantics. This clearly distinguishes search from memory_read/update/append implicitly, but it does not explicitly call out how it differs from memory_read.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_read, memory_update, or memory_append. The description gives context that it searches JOURNAL, but it provides no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.