memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the search uses embeddings and optional reranking, which hints at the underlying methodology, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that gets directly to the point. It is perfectly front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and includes no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core action and its optional features.

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?

Although an output schema exists, which somewhat relieves the need to describe return values, the description is still inadequate for a tool with five parameters, two required and no annotations. It does not clarify the relationship between namespace and session_id, nor does it explain how the search handles different namespaces or session contexts. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'embeddings' and 'optional reranking.' The reranking reference is essentially the same as the rerank boolean parameter, adding no new meaning. The description fails to explain the purpose or format of via parameters such as namespace, top_k, and session_id, leaving much of the parameter semantics undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching memory, with a specific method (embeddings) and an optional feature (reranking). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_delete and memory_index, which are clearly different operations. However, it lacks a defined scope or any details about the memory being searched.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any context in which this search should be invoked. It only states the action, leaving the agent without guidance on selection.

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