memory_hybrid_search

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

With no annotations, the description provides significant behavioral context: it details the RRF algorithm, default preview mode, content_mode options, lineage follow modes, and suggests using memory_get for full content. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, then explains algorithm, then provides an Args section. The Args section is verbose but necessary given 0% schema coverage. Overall well-structured, though slightly long.

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 14 parameters, no schema descriptions, and presence of output schema, the description covers all parameters, algorithm, return format, and hints for full content retrieval. It is remarkably complete for a complex tool.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains all 14 parameters with defaults, effects, and relationships (e.g., semantic_weight vs keyword weight, content_mode effects). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

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 states the tool performs a hybrid search combining keyword (FTS) and semantic (vector) search using RRF. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_semantic_search (pure semantic) and memory_list (simple list). The verb 'Perform' and resource 'hybrid search' are specific.

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 implies use when wanting better results than keyword or semantic alone, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like memory_semantic_search or memory_list. No 'when not to use' or explicit exclusions are provided, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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