memo_search_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms read-only behavior and adds that it returns trace metadata. The description adds useful behavioral context without contradictions.

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?

Description is 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and read-only status. Minimal fluff, but could be slightly more concise by combining sentences.

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?

Given 0% parameter coverage and 6 parameters, the description lacks parameter guidance and does not explain what 'trace diagnostics' entails. Output schema partially compensates, but overall completeness is adequate yet not thorough.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., mode, type, limit, query, source, body_chars). The agent must rely solely on the schema, making parameter usage unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches memories and includes retrieval trace diagnostics, distinguishing it from memo_search by specifying it's for debugging ranking/filters/recall misses.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when debugging ranking, filters, or recall misses rather than for normal lookup,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with a sibling tool named.

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