search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals important behavior: only live entries returned, semantic search when Ollama running, and inclusion of a semantic_distance field. However, it does not mention any potential rate limits or authorization requirements, which are minor gaps.

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 concise (three sentences, ~64 words) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, edge cases, and post-search guidance without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (semantic_distance) and provides context on when semantic search occurs. It also addresses the 'only live entries' constraint and suggests fallback tools. Minor omission: no mention of result ordering or pagination, but acceptable for this complexity level.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters. The description adds some meaning by specifying the fields searched by the query parameter, but this is incremental. Likely baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter's purpose.

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 ('Search memories by text'), the resource (memories), and the specific fields searched (label, description, why_matters, tags). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' by advising to call recall with an ID after a relevant result.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Only live entries are returned; use forgotten or whats_stale if something seems missing.' It also provides guidance on next steps: 'If a result looks relevant, call recall with its ID.'

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