Search memory

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: literal word matching, prefix matching on the last word, excerpt-only hits by default, newest-first ordering among equal relevance, and empty results for unknown projects. None of this contradicts the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct operational value: purpose, matching rules, excerpt behavior, and ordering/empty-result behavior. The purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 description covers scope, query behavior, result excerpt shape, ordering, and empty-result handling, which is solid for a read-only search tool with no output schema. It falls just short of a 5 because exact hit structure and defaults for optional parameters like limit and include_superseded are not described.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain query matching semantics and the excerpt-versus-body behavior tied to include_body, but it leaves kinds and include_superseded semantics undocumented, and limit's default is not stated. Partial compensation, not complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over a project's memories.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings memory_record (creating memory) and project_status (reading status), so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 establishes a clear usage context: searching project memories with full-text semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer memory_record or project_status, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would earn a 5.

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