memory_search

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

Description mentions returning ranked results, indicating behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose aspects like side effects (e.g., read-only), authentication needs, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and key details, allowing quick understanding.

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?

While output schema exists (so return values are optional), the description omits important context like search scope (e.g., filtering by kind/project) and default limit behavior. Adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for a mutation tool with 4 params.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on parameters like 'kind', 'project', or 'limit'. The mention of 'semantic similarity and keywords' partially explains 'query', but overall insufficient to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states it searches memories by semantic similarity and keywords, returning ranked results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list (which likely lists all) and memory_store.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for search with semantic and keyword capabilities, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Lacks context for exclusion.

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