memoryguard_memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add a useful behavioral signal: 'Read-only.' However, it does not clarify retrieval behavior such as default status filtering, semantics of the search modes, or whether quarantined/deleted records are included by default, leaving that to the schema.

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 short sentences with the action and object front-loaded, followed by a compact safety cue. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The description provides the core operation and filter dimensions, and the schema documents all parameters and defaults. However, with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, an agent is left to infer the return shape and when to choose this tool over the many related search/read tools.

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 100%, so all six parameters already carry meaningful descriptions and defaults. The tool description only names three filter axes (query, kind, status) and adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Search shared memory records', with clear filter dimensions 'by query, kind, or status'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like memory_read or history_search, but the search framing is still clear.

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 tool's purpose implies it should be used when finding shared memory records by flexible filters, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over memory_read, history_search, or knowledge_search. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative routing are provided.

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