search_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the return shape (best memory plus its date, one line per other match), the meaning of an AMBIGUOUS result and the recovery path, the obligation to relay OUTDATED notices, and the two `detail` modes. It never states whether the call has side effects, permission requirements, or result limits, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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The opening sentence front-loads the scope, the ambiguity/outdated handling follows, and the Args block is compact and scannable. It is slightly longer than necessary given an output schema already exists, since part of the return-format sentence restates what the schema exposes.

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 3-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and a documented output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, query phrasing, ambiguity workflow, and outdated handling. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results, permission assumptions, or result caps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: each of the three parameters is explained with meaning beyond its title, including the conditional trigger for `clue` ('only after an AMBIGUOUS reply') and the actual difference between `detail` values ('compact' default vs 'full' adding ids, tree paths and excerpts).

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 ('Search the user's long-term memory (IHMT)') and enumerates the content it covers: decisions, setup, preferences, people, earlier sessions. That is far more than a tautology. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, `recall`, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 concrete procedural guidance: use several distinctive words rather than a bare name, and pass `clue` only after an AMBIGUOUS reply. That is clear context for how and when to call it. It does not name any alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one, so it misses the 5 bar.

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