search_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the semantic retrieval behavior and the source data, but it does not explain limitations, result ordering, filtering behavior, or what the output represents. It is adequate but not rich.

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 appropriately concise: a one-line summary, a short usage note, and a minimal Args listing. Every part earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 straightforward search tool with four parameters, the description covers the operation, parameter meanings, and intended context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. Minor gaps include lack of combination semantics for filters and no sibling differentiation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: query as a natural language query, top_k as maximum results, and tag/author as filters. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema titles.

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 a specific action—'Search team memories by semantic similarity'—and identifies the resource and method. It names what the tool does, though it does not fully distinguish it from siblings like find_similar or search_by_file.

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 an explicit use case: use this to find relevant context, decisions, patterns, or conventions documented by team members. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives.

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