Search Zynx Memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'allowlisted' and 'ilike' but omits details like return format, ordering, limit behavior, or what happens when no matches occur. This is minimal for a search tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It is concise and contains no filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not explain return values, ordering, or pagination. The context around 'Zynx memory' and 'allowlisted' is also unelaborated, leaving the agent with insufficient information for a tool with 4 parameters and no response schema.

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 75% with descriptions for query, tableName, and contentColumn, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds the 'ilike' behavior but does not clarify limit semantics or expand on any parameter beyond schema text. This is adequate but not additive.

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 action ('Keyword search') and the resource ('allowlisted Zynx memory table'), specifying the matching mechanism ('using ilike'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_table by focusing on memory content and fuzzy text matching.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_table or list_allowed_tables. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual selection criteria.

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