search_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some useful context by specifying 'UTF-8' encoding, 'literal text' (implying exact matching, not regex), and 'returning matching lines' (indicating output format). However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as what happens with no matches, whether the search covers entire directories or specific files via the 'path' parameter, and how limit and case_sensitive affect behavior.

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 main action and resource. Every word contributes value; there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. It is an excellent example of efficient, focused description.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. It does not explain the role of the optional 'path' parameter (e.g., searching a specific file vs all memory files), the default behavior for case_sensitive or limit, or any edge cases. This leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool reliably in varied scenarios.

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 schema covers 0% of parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by clarifying that it searches for literal text in memory files and returns matching lines. However, it does not explain the 'path', 'limit', or 'case_sensitive' parameters, their defaults, or how they affect the search, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('UTF-8 memory files'), and a distinct scope ('literal text, returning matching lines'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_memories, read_memory, history, diff, and capture, which have different purposes.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where search_memories is preferred or where tools like read_memory or history might be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and basic description.

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