search_memory

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: BM25 retrieval, Chinese tokenization via Intl.Segmenter, two-character term recallability, and default filtering of current valid facts. These go beyond the tool name and help agents understand recall limits and result scoping.

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 very concise — two short sentences with no filler. The key verb and resource come first, followed by impactful behavioral details and default behavior.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides core retrieval semantics, tokenization behavior, and the default validity filter. It does not describe return format or filter interaction, but the required query is clear and optional parameters are mostly self-evident from schema names.

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 43%, so the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining query tokenization and default fact validity. It does not explain optional filter semantics such as scope or subject, but their names and schema enum/constraints provide reasonable guidance.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'BM25 全文检索记忆' (BM25 full-text search memory) — and adds the important scoping detail that by default only currently valid facts are returned. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like list_memories or save_memory.

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: use this when you need full-text search over memory, rather than exact listing or mutation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_memories or mention any exclusions.

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