Keyword search across keys and values

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description details FTS5 with bm25 ranking, key-weighting, word-stemming, diacritic folding, prefix matching, fallback to LIKE scan, case-insensitivity, and privacy_mode effects. No contradictions with 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds unique context (search scope, indexing details, fallback, output, privacy mode).

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?

No output schema, so description should detail return format. It only says 'Returns top N matches with a snippet.' Lacks specifics like structure of results (keys, values, tags?), snippet content, or difference between privacy modes beyond snippet omission.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'query' matches against keys, values, AND tags (schema says keys and values only) and explaining privacy_mode enum values ('summary omits snippets').

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 'Full-text search across keys, values AND tags', using a specific verb ('search') and resource (memory items). This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_get (single retrieval) and memory_list (listing).

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 usage for querying but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., memory_get, memory_list, or memory_forget_by_tag for tag-based operations). No 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned.

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