gateway_memory_sources_search

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already indicates a read-only operation. The description adds that it searches source-backed knowledge and does not copy into memory, reinforcing the read-only nature and clarifying the data source. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or result size limits. Given the minimal annotation, the description provides some value but does not significantly go beyond what readOnlyHint already implies.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key differentiator. It contains no fluff and every word contributes to meaning. This is an example of efficient, well-structured writing.

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 an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description lacks essential context: it does not explain the parameters, nor does it explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over similar search tools. All parameters are optional with defaults, which reduces urgency, but the total absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves the definition incomplete for a tool with three parameters and zero schema descriptions.

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%—no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters (query, limit, include_yonote) or explain their meanings. An agent would have to rely on parameter names and defaults, which are not self-explanatory (e.g., include_yonote). With zero coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct a valid call.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'source-backed long-term knowledge', and explicitly lists the sources (Yonote/templates/ADR/docs). It also distinguishes itself from memory search by adding 'without copying it into memory', which differentiates it from sibling tools like gateway_memory_search. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool—when searching source-backed knowledge rather than memory—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not conditions. It gives context but leaves the agent to infer the distinction from the phrase 'source-backed' and 'without copying it into memory'. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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