search_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the output shape by listing the grouping categories, which is useful. However, it does not mention matching semantics, result limits, ordering, or what happens when no memories match.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The trigger condition is front-loaded and the output grouping is stated efficiently.

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 single-parameter search tool with no nested objects or output schema, the description covers the main invocation context and what kind of results to expect. It could mention result-level details or explicitly route to siblings for specific slices, but it is sufficient for basic correct use.

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 100% and the single query parameter is already described as 'The repository question or search terms.' The description adds the notion of relevance to a task/question, but it does not substantially expand on the schema-provided parameter meaning.

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 action: searching repository context relevant to a question or task, and describes the returned result as matching memories grouped by architecture, files, dependencies, packages, repository, commits, and gaps. This makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the get_* and list_* siblings beyond implying a broader search.

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 explicitly says 'Call when you need repository context relevant to a question or task,' giving a clear trigger for use. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose it over more targeted gap/architecture tools.

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