memory_search

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: project_path isolation, a warning against automatic personal-memory import, and that runtime reports the actual embedding and storage backend.

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 short and front-loads the core semantic-search concept with a concrete example. The policy sentence about personal memory is somewhat separate from invocation semantics but still earns its place as a guardrail.

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 seven-parameter read-only search tool with rich schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides enough conceptual context to call it correctly: semantic matching, project isolation, and backend reporting. It remains slightly incomplete because it does not route the agent among retrieval 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 seven parameters are already well documented, including smart, threshold, namespace, and provenance_filter. The description reinforces the semantic nature of query and project_path isolation but adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource — find stored memories — and clearly specifies semantic/vector similarity rather than literal text matching, with a useful example. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from retrieval siblings such as memory_retrieve or memory_list, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It gives contextual usage guidance ('Use for project-scoped persistent memory') and a policy warning ('Never import personal memory automatically'), but does not state when to choose this over sibling tools like memory_retrieve, memory_list, or memory_stats. The usage context is implied rather than comparative.

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