memory_search_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that search is by 'semantic similarity' rather than exact keyword, which sets expectations. But it does not cover result ordering, empty-result behavior, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first states the core action and method, the second lists concrete usage examples. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a straightforward search with a fully described schema, and the description provides appropriate use cases and search mechanism. While there is no output schema, the return type (matching memories) is strongly implied by the tool's purpose, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the intent of the query parameter but adds no additional detail about the 'limit' or 'category' parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the tool as a semantic search over stored memories with concrete use cases. The verb 'Search' and resource 'memories' distinguish it from sibling memory mutation tools like memory_save_memory and memory_delete_memory.

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 explicit usage scenarios ('recall past conversations, find previously stored project context, retrieve technical decisions, or look up user preferences'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, e.g., for keyword-based search or searching documents.

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