search_ghost_memory

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ranking formula, the self-tuning loop via bump_activation (side effect), and security details about SECURITY DEFINER and shared-restricted allowlist. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, security warning, ranking formula, side effect. Front-loaded core usage. However, the ranking formula is detailed and may be more than necessary for an agent to select/invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers overall behavior, ranking, side effect, and security. But missing explanations for n_results, expand_links, and include_restricted limit completeness. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed.

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 0%, so description must explain all 5 parameters. It only explains the query parameter (empty vs. non-empty) and implicitly current_project via security warning. n_results, expand_links, and include_restricted are not described. The ranking formula is given but not tied to parameters.

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 cross-project agent ghost memories, differentiating empty query (list top-ranked) from non-empty query (hybrid search). The verb 'search' and resource 'ghost memory' are specific, and sibling tools (conversations/diaries) are distinct.

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?

Provides context for empty vs. non-empty query usage and security caveats about current_project not being server-verified. Lacks explicit alternatives among siblings, but the purpose is so distinct that siblings are clearly different.

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