memory_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only notes that results carry source and confidence. It says nothing about ranking behavior, whether expired facts are merged, tenancy isolation effects, or cost/latency tradeoffs from token_budget — all of which matter for a retrieval tool with history semantics.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the key behavior (source- and confidence-tagged snippets) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so conciseness itself is not the problem.

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?

With 5 parameters, a nested scope object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain scope isolation, budget controls, and the include_history auto-detection behavior. It covers none of these, leaving the agent to infer how retrieval limits and history inclusion actually work.

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 60% and the description adds zero parameter meaning. top_k and token_budget have no descriptions anywhere, and the nested scope object's isolation semantics are only hinted at in the schema's own text, not clarified by the description.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (检索/长期记忆) and states what comes back (带来源与置信度的上下文片段). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling retrieval tools such as agent_recall or memory_profile, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 statement of when to use this versus agent_recall, memory_profile, or memory_add, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase '与当前任务相关' implies a usage context but gives no routing criteria.

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