search_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search fields and ranking but does not mention side effects (likely read-only, but not confirmed), performance characteristics, or return format details. Adequate but not comprehensive for a read operation without annotation support.

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?

Single sentence of ~20 words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word contributes meaning; no redundancy or filler. Achieves maximum conciseness for a search tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description need not detail parameters or return values. It explains the core function and search scope. Minor omission: does not clarify that ranking is the default ordering or mention pagination, but overall it is nearly complete for a search tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the specific fields searched (title, aliases, etc.), which is not in the schema descriptions. This helps the agent form effective queries. Other parameters are well-described in the schema, so the description's addition is meaningful.

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 specifies the action ('Search') and the resource ('durable memories') with a unique feature ('relevance ranking') and explicitly lists the fields searched (title, aliases, tags, path, description, body terms). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memories (no 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 usage for finding relevant memories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_memories or get_memory. The context of sibling tools partially compensates, but direct guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is missing.

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