memory.search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search mechanism (substring match) but omits critical traits: whether it is read-only, whether it requires auth or project context, what happens with no results, and the impact of truncation. The truncated:true indicator is mentioned in the schema for max_content_length but not in the description itself.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for usage notes).

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and 6 sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify return format (just 'entries' implied), default behavior (e.g., limit=5), and how parameters like project_id/project_root affect the search. The description needs to cover more behavioral details for an agent to use it effectively.

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 63%, so the description partially compensates by explaining the search scope. However, it does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema for parameters like scope, query, or limit. The description doesn't clarify what 'scope' means or how substring matching interacts with tags.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('long-term memory'), and specifies the mechanism ('substring match over stored content and tags'). This distinguishes it from semantic search tools like kb.search, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory.list or source.search.

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 guidance on when to use substring search versus alternatives like full-text search (use_fts flag exists in schema but is not mentioned). It also doesn't clarify how this tool relates to sibling tools such as memory.list, kb.search, or source.search, leaving a significant usage gap for the agent.

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