memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches memories, but does not disclose behavior such as whether it is read-only, how results are ordered, pagination, or what constitutes 'active' vs 'stale'. Minimal behavioral context.

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 sentence, front-loaded, and concise. However, it is overly brief given the complexity of the tool and its many siblings, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, how to interpret results, or when to choose this over similar search tools.

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% and description does not explain the 'query' parameter format or the 'limit' parameter's role. The only hint is 'by keyword', which is insufficient for accurate use. No added value beyond schema structure.

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 specifies the action ('full-text search') and the resource ('active or stale repo memories') with a clear keyword basis. It distinguishes from siblings like 'semantic_search' by implying it is keyword-based rather than semantic, though it could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., semantic_search, memory_for_symbol). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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