search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It informs about default reranking and how to disable it (via env var or parameter), the boosting behavior for current project's memories (non-lossy), the fallback to server's working directory, and the hard limiting effect of scope='project'. These are significant behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 composed of three sentences, starting with a clear purpose and output. The additional sentences provide necessary behavioral context without excessive verbosity. It is slightly dense but well-structured and front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately outlines the return format (id+snippet index) and key behaviors. Missing details include the meaning of 'k' and possible values for 'scope' beyond the special 'project' case. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool reliably, though not exhaustive.

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 explain parameters. It explains project (target another project, else working directory), scope (hard-limits to project), and rerank (boolean, default true). It does not mention 'k', which likely controls the number of results, but query is self-evident. Coverage is good but incomplete for one parameter.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'hybrid search over memory' and returns a 'compact id+snippet index'. This is a specific verb+resource+output that distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' and 'recent' by emphasizing the hybrid search nature and the indexed output.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as recall, recent, or build_context. The description focuses on parameter behavior (project scoping, reranking) but does not state exclusions or recommend usage contexts. The mention of 'Recall prefers your current project's memories' is confusingly worded and does not serve as clear usage guidance.

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