Chercher dans la mémoire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fully discloses key behaviors: default lexical matching at 50% query word threshold, no graph propagation, ranking by priority, and relax mode performing 2-hop graph associations. This is more than sufficient for a non-mutating 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 a tight three-sentence paragraph with no redundant details. It front-loads the default behavior, then explains the relax exception, and ends with a usage warning. Every sentence contributes information.

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?

For an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential search semantics and usage caveats. It could go further by describing the result format or ranking details, but the priority ranking is already mentioned and the core behavior is well specified.

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?

The schema already documents all 8 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, such as the 50% threshold interpretation for 'query' and the 2-hop graph traversal for 'relax'. This enriches the schema without duplicating it.

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 identifies this as a memory search tool with specific matching behavior (lexical threshold, priority ranking), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_themes. The verb 'recherche' and resource 'mémoire' are explicit.

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 explicitly contrasts strict default search (suitable for answering) with relax mode (only for exploration) and warns against using relax for answering. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it gives clear contextual guidance on when to use each mode.

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