memo_search_trace

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds valuable context: 'Read-only. Debug variant... Returns the same style of hits as memo_search plus trace metadata that explains how candidates were selected and scored at each stage.' This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. There is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a targeted debug tool variant.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters with 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and a clear sibling relationship), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and what distinguishes the output. No critical information is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the output (trace metadata). No additional parameter semantics are added, so the score remains at 3.

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 starts with 'Search memories and include retrieval trace diagnostics,' specifying the verb (search) and resource (memories) with a clear differentiator (trace diagnostics). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool memo_search by calling itself a 'debug variant' and stating its specialized use case.

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 explicit guidance: 'use it when investigating ranking, filters, or recall misses rather than for normal lookup.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over memo_search, satisfying the dimension's requirement for context and exclusion.

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