search_project_memory

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 discloses the search algorithm (Exact/BM25 first) and a conditional re-check behavior ('Re-check code memories if status is not active'). However, it does not clarify what 'status' refers to, nor does it mention side effects, rate limits, or data persistence.

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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose 'Search current repo memory.' Efficient and to the point.

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?

With 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of parameters, the return format, or the conditions for the re-check behavior. A user/agent cannot determine how to properly invoke this tool without additional documentation.

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%, and the description adds minimal parameter context. It mentions 'status' implicitly but does not explain the four parameters (cwd, limit, query, statuses) or their allowed values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 searches 'current repo memory' and mentions the search method (Exact/BM25 first) and a conditional behavior (re-checking code memories if status is not active). It distinguishes from siblings like list_memories or search_evidence, but could be more specific about what 'current repo memory' encompasses.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_memory, list_memories, or search_evidence. The description implies it's for searching, but lacks context or exclusion criteria to help an agent decide between similar sibling tools.

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