memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool modifies memory, requires special permissions, or is read-only. For a search operation, it likely does not mutate state, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence of only five words, making it extremely concise. While it could benefit from slightly more detail (e.g., return value), it remains efficient and to the point.

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 lack of output schema and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of addresses) or how to interpret the pattern parameter. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent using the tool.

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%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names, meeting the baseline but providing no extra value.

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 'Search process memory for a pattern' clearly states the action (search) and resource (process memory), distinguishing it from siblings like memory_read or memory_write which perform different operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from heap_search, which is a closely related sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as heap_search or memory_read. It lacks any contextual cues about prerequisites or exclusions.

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