mem_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description goes beyond by disclosing that long bodies are truncated to a 400-character preview with a content_truncated flag. This is critical behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the scope default/override, and the truncation behavior with a pointer to the alternative tool. It is concise and well-structured with key information front-loaded.

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 7-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential caveats (default project scope, preview truncation, and how to get full content). It gives the agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without requiring extra external knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, providing detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond summarizing that filters are optional, so it appropriately relies on the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: searching persistent observations via full-text query with optional filters. It specifies the scope behavior (current project unless overridden) and explicitly distinguishes itself from mem_get_observation, which is used to read full bodies.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on default behavior (current project) and how to alter it (project or all_projects). It also names an alternative tool (mem_get_observation) for the specific case of retrieving a full observation, fulfilling the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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