Search memory

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful context about retrieval mode (semantic + lexical) and trustworthiness ('source of truth'). However, it says nothing about result ordering, relevance/threshold behavior, or how many results come back by default, which matter for interpretation of a search tool with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the capability stated first and the usage directive second. Every clause carries actionable 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 a six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and when to invoke. The remaining gap is what results look like and how they're ranked, but with a limit parameter and high schema coverage this is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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 83% and the description mentions no parameters at all; the schema already documents kind, tags, project, include_superseded, and query with examples. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds nothing beyond structured fields here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Hybrid semantic + lexical search over persistent cross-project memory') and adds the scope qualifier 'cross-project', which cleanly separates it from memory_get and memory_list. An agent knows immediately what kind of retrieval this is.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this BEFORE answering questions about past decisions, incidents, infrastructure quirks, or user preferences') plus a boundary condition ('not derivable from the current repo'). It stops short of naming alternatives such as memory_get for known IDs or memory_list for enumeration, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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