memory_semantic_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the default content mode, the effect of `content_mode`, `preview_chars`, and the `follow` lineage modes. It also describes the return format changes based on `fields`. No side effects are relevant for a read tool. Good disclosure of key behaviors.

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 moderately concise. It starts with a clear one-liner, then uses an `Args` section for details. However, some explanations (e.g., for `fields` and `follow`) are verbose and could be tightened without losing clarity. It earns its keep but has some redundancy.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and return format. It explains the two content modes, lineage resolution, and field selection. It does not address error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly in most situations.

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 does so comprehensively: each of the 8 parameters is described with its purpose, default value, and behavior. For example, `fields` explains the envelope vs. flat list distinction, and `follow` details the three lineage modes. This significantly adds value over the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states it performs semantic search using vector embeddings. The description differentiates from other search tools like hybrid search by name, but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb 'performs' and resource 'semantic 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?

Provides guidance on default preview mode and how to get full content, and explains the `follow` and `fields` parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_hybrid_search or memory_list, nor when not to use it.

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