search_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scoping but does not clarify read-only nature, result ordering, behavior when no matches found, or any limitations. The description adds little beyond the schema's parameter names, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the core purpose and then adds the scoping detail, making it easy to parse.

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 a tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and no annotations or parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too brief. It does not cover the meaning of top_k, the importance of query, or how scoping interacts with the search. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to explain the input parameters and usage context, which it fails to do.

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 must compensate. The phrase 'scoped to user_id/agent_id/run_id' adds meaning by indicating these are filtering parameters, and 'semantic search' implies query is the search text. However, top_k and the optionality of scope parameters are not explained, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 identifies the tool as a semantic search over stored memories, using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly mentions scoping by user_id/agent_id/run_id, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memories (non-semantic listing) and get_memory (single retrieval).

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 usage for semantic search within a scope but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_memories or get_memory. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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