Search Memories

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe, non-mutating nature of the tool. The description adds only that search is by content and tags, which repeats the query parameter's schema description; it does not disclose behavior like matching semantics, result ordering, or limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states the action and scope directly, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any context about how search_memories relates to recall or when tag-based search is preferred, leaving some ambiguity in a toolset with several similar memory-access operations.

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 the parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 identifies the tool as a search operation over memories, specifying the search dimensions: content and tags. It is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes itself from direct retrieval tools like get_memory, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling recall tool.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose search_memories over alternatives such as get_memory or recall. The only usage signal is the implied need to search by content or tags, which is reasonable but not stated as selection criteria.

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