hb_mem_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Search" implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement about result ordering, pagination via limit, category semantics, or what happens when no match exists.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and waste-free, which is good, but the brevity here reads as under-specification rather than discipline. A slightly longer statement could route usage without bloat.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one line is insufficient. An agent lacks guidance on filtering by category or agent_id, how limit interacts with result ordering, and how this search relates to the other mem and kb siblings.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The word "keyword" hints at query matching style but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema's "Search query".

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?

"Search memory by keyword" names a verb (search) and resource (memory), so the core purpose is legible. But with siblings like hb_mem_context, hb_mem_merge, hb_mem_consolidate, and hb_kb_search, a one-phrase description does nothing to distinguish which memory surface this targets or how it differs from context 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent cannot tell from this description whether to reach for hb_mem_query, hb_mem_context, or hb_kb_search first, and no prerequisites or result expectations are stated.

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