search_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the search scope (content and tags) and return format (JSON list). However, it does not mention edge cases like no results, pagination, or performance implications. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a read-only 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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage context, a bullet list for parameters, and a line for return. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, parameters with explanations, and return type. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke 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 0%, but the description provides explicit explanations for each parameter: query, workspace, and repository. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only shows types and defaults. The description clarifies what each parameter does, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 searches memories by keyword, specifying it searches content and tags. It distinguishes usage by providing a specific context: 'Use this before reviewing PRs or making suggestions to check for existing standards or learnings.' This makes the purpose distinct from sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'get_relevant_memories'.

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 explicitly says when to use it: before reviewing PRs or making suggestions. It provides clear context, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'get_relevant_memories'. Nonetheless, it gives actionable guidance.

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