memory_search

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

No annotations provided; description only states 'search' without detailing behavioral traits like read-only nature, default method, or potential side effects. Lacks disclosure of performance or result aggregation.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and resource, second provides usage guidance. No redundant information, front-loaded with essential context.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits explanation of method, owner_type, and project_id parameters, and does not describe return format or behavior. Schema coverage at 60% is insufficient to compensate.

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 coverage is 60%. Description adds clarity for query ('short query: a few keywords or one short phrase') but does not explain other parameters like top_k, method, owner_type, or project_id. Relies heavily on schema defaults.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches local EverOS memory for prior coding context. Distinguishes from siblings (memory_flush, memory_get, memory_save_turn) by focusing on search and providing specific use cases like historical fixes.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: 'for historical fixes, past decisions, or project conventions.' Implicitly excludes other memory operations, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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