memory_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description becomes the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It discloses scope normalization, immediate errors on illegal scope (rather than silent empty results), and the review-gate blocking behavior with status=blocked and the resolution path. This is substantial, though it doesn't cover aspects like authentication or rate limits.

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 structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose and output, followed by two sentences explaining error handling and the review-gate flow. It's detailed but not verbose, and every sentence carries relevant operational 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must convey return structure, and it does: it mentions the XML block and structured hit list, plus the status=blocked variant. It also covers edge cases (illegal scope, review backlog) and provides the retry/alternative paths. For a search tool of this complexity, this is adequate.

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. It explains the behavior of 'scope' (normalization) and 'acknowledge_pending' (used in retry after confirmation), which are the non-obvious parameters. 'query' and 'k' are self-explanatory from their names and defaults, so the description adds sufficient meaning.

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 ('检索' = retrieve), a resource ('历史记忆' = historical memory), and what it returns (XML block and structured hit list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_review_list or memory_add, which serve different purposes.

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 gives explicit guidance on handling the blocked status: after user confirmation, retry with acknowledge_pending=true, or use memory_review_list / memory_review_resolve to process pending items. This tells the agent when to use alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use this tool when you need to search' vs. other contexts.

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