search_memory

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 mentions relevance ranking but fails to describe key behaviors such as how filters interact with ranking, the default result ordering, or what happens with missing content. The description is too brief to adequately inform an agent of all behavioral traits.

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 of 16 words, front-loading the core action and key differentiator. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, rich filters, output schema) and the presence of sibling search-related tools, the description is quite sparse. However, the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. It adequately covers the primary purpose but lacks guidance on filter usage and result interpretation.

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?

While the input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, the tool description adds value by specifying the exact fields searched ('title, aliases, tags, path, description, and body terms'), which is not present in the schema. This enhances the agent's understanding of what 'query' targets.

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 durable memories') and specifies the fields used for relevance ranking ('title, aliases, tags, path, description, and body terms'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_memories' (likely without ranking) and 'get_memory' (single retrieval).

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 use for ranked full-text search, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_memories' or when to avoid it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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