ragflow_search_memory_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about ranking behavior, whether results are thresholded, or what happens when no matches clear the similarity bar.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. However, brevity here slides into under-specification rather than efficiency, since critical selection details are omitted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for an 8-parameter retrieval tool with half its parameters undocumented, the description should explain memory scoping and when this search beats the list/recent siblings — and it does not.

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 50% across 8 parameters, so the schema leaves user_id, agent_id, session_id, and similarity_threshold undocumented. The description compensates for none of this, mentioning neither scoping parameters nor the top_n default of 5.

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 names a verb ('search') and a resource ('messages within memories') with a relevance qualifier, so the basic action is understandable. But it gives no differentiation from close siblings like ragflow_list_memory_messages, ragflow_recent_memory_messages, or ragflow_retrieval, all of which touch similar data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use semantic search versus listing or recent-message retrieval, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that memory_ids must be supplied), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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