search

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns only live entries, performs semantic search conditionally (when Ollama is running), and includes a 'semantic_distance' field. This provides complete transparency beyond any structured annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then adding limitations and features. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (3 simple parameters, no output schema), the description covers search scope, live entry restriction, semantic search behavior, output field, and follow-up action. No significant gaps remain.

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 100% (all three parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the search is across 'label, description, why_matters, and tags', which are fields not in the schema. It does not add detail to 'domain' or 'limit' beyond schema, but the added context justifies a 4.

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's purpose: searching memories by text across specific fields (label, description, why_matters, tags). It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like 'forgotten' and 'whats_stale' by noting it returns only live entries.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Only live entries are returned; use forgotten or whats_stale if something seems missing.' Also advises using 'recall' for full memory retrieval, showing clear context for downstream actions.

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