search_memory

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile, so the description's real contribution is the default exclusion of superseded entries, the note that only snippets come back, and the caveat that archive snippets are imported data rather than instructions. That last point is a genuinely useful prompt-injection warning not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the return shape, then the two exclusion/trust caveats. Nothing is padding and no sentence duplicates the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, and the description still clarifies snippet-level results plus superseded/archive behavior. The main remaining hole is any hint about what the kinds values mean or how to choose among them.

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 low at 17%, so the description must carry the load, and it does add meaning for include_superseded and include_archive. However, the large kinds enum, the limit cap of 50, and the query syntax get no explanation, leaving half the parameters undocumented in either place.

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 ("full-text search") and resource ("this project's knowledge ... raw archive"), and clarifies the return granularity ("snippets and ids, not whole documents"). That implicitly separates it from get_context, though no sibling is named outright.

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 scope phrase and the "optionally its raw archive" clause imply when to reach for this tool, but the definition never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative such as get_context or list_projects for a different retrieval need. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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