memory_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details behavioral traits such as prioritizing user_confirmed/high confidence memories, handling empty queries to list recent memories, and recommending synonym retries. There is no contradiction with the input schema or annotations (none provided).

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 paragraph that is informative but could be better structured. It front-loads purpose and usage, yet the density of information could be organized into bullet points or clearer sections. Overall, every sentence adds value, but conciseness is slightly compromised by length.

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 tool's complexity (4 optional parameters, output schema exists, no annotations), the description provides extensive usage guidance but lacks detailed parameter explanations. The output schema may cover return values, so this is partially acceptable, but the missing parameter semantics detract from completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies usage for the 'query' parameter but does not explain 'tags', 'limit', or 'workspace' in detail. The search tips reference empty query behavior but fail to define parameter formats or semantics, leaving a significant gap.

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 states that the tool searches across a shared memory repository ('按关键词搜索跨工具共享记忆库'), clearly identifying the verb and resource. It further specifies the types of information to be searched (项目知识、历史决策、偏好、文档摘要类问题) and distinguishes from siblings like memory_recent which lists recent memories.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('应先查记忆，再读源文件'), provides search tips (优先用2-4个核心词，不要只用整句), and states when to fall back to alternatives (仅当记忆缺失、过期或冲突时再回原始文件). This offers clear context and exclusion criteria.

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