jambavan_memory_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the algorithm (BM25), searchable fields, and return fields (score, title, scope, body preview). It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state no side effects. This is fairly transparent for a search tool.

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 fluff. First sentence states core function and algorithm. Second sentence details search and return fields. Third sentence mentions optional filtering. Information is front-loaded and every sentence is necessary.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers input semantics and return fields. It mentions ranked results with score and body preview. Missing details like result ordering or limitations (e.g., no pagination info) but sufficient for most use cases.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining what fields are searched (title, description, tags, body), which is not in the schema. It reinforces the scope parameter's optionality, but does not mention limit, which is already clear in 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 it searches stored memories using BM25 across multiple fields (title, description, tags, body). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jambavan_memory_recall (likely for specific retrieval) and general search (search). The verb 'search' and resource 'memories' are specific.

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 searching memories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or contrasting guidance is provided, though the mention of optional scope filtering hints at customization.

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