search_memory

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

The annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to re-declare safety. It adds a meaningful boundary by saying results are always scoped to the current MCP workspace, though it does not explain the practical consequences of openWorldHint (e.g., results may be non-exhaustive or change).

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, trigger conditions, and scope. The slight overlap between 'already decided' and 'past decision' is acceptable and each sentence earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema and readable parameter descriptions, the definition covers what it searches, when to call, and its workspace scope. The remaining gap is not naming when to prefer sibling read tools, but this is a moderate omission given the tool's low complexity.

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 60% and the schema already describes limit, taskId, referenceAt, and category as an enum. The description maps only to the query parameter ('specific topic') and does not clarify query format, category usage, or referenceAt syntax; it adds marginal value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and a clear resource ('what the user has already decided'), so an agent knows this is a read/search operation. It does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools like get_context, and 'already decided' narrows the scope more than the category enum (which includes context/code/project) suggests.

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 gives strong positive guidance: call before choosing a library, pattern, or tool, and whenever the user refers to a past decision. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_context or list_entities, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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