vmn_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the search operates across all memory objects and returns only candidate roots rather than full evidence. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how limit or namespace parameters affect behavior, or any ordering/pagination details, leaving clear gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, each contributing distinct information: the search action and scope, the output form, and the routing to vmn_recall. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential output expectation ('Returns candidate roots') and onward guidance to vmn_recall. The parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. It could add a note about namespace behavior or the meaning of 'candidate roots', but the definition is largely complete for an agent to invoke it successfully.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (query, limit, namespace) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'keyword query', which maps to the query parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('all memory objects in the vault'), and states the output ('Returns candidate roots'). It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling vmn_recall by clarifying that recall retrieves full evidence, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clearly states the tool's scope ('across all memory objects in the vault') and gives an explicit alternative: 'Use vmn_recall with a specific root to retrieve full evidence.' This provides helpful routing, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions beyond that single alternative.

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