search_memory

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

The description discloses key behaviors: keyword matching (not semantic), case-insensitive, returns lines with surrounding context, and searches all memory sections. However, it does not mention limitations like max results, pagination, or ordering. With no annotations, this provides moderate transparency but could be more thorough.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the usage guidance, and the second explains the behavior. No superfluous words; each sentence adds essential value.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, search mechanism, and return format. It could mention result limits or wildcard support, but it is largely complete for a simple search tool.

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?

Only one parameter (query) with 100% schema coverage. The description repeats the schema's description (case-insensitive keyword matching) without adding new meaning. According to guidance, when schema_coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description offers no additional parameter-level insight.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: searching memory sections using keyword matching. It also specifies when to use it ('before scanning the codebase when the user asks about project architecture, API contracts, decisions, bugs, conventions, or previous implementation choices'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_memory or list_memory_sections.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('before scanning the codebase' for specific types of queries). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but the context implies alternatives (e.g., scanning codebase for other queries). This still offers clear direction.

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