mem_search

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

The description implies a read-only search but does not explicitly state that no changes are made or disclose any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially addresses behavioral transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses only necessary words. The structure with intro, usage, and parameter list is efficient and scannable.

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 3 parameters and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, usage, and parameter details. It lacks information on pagination or sorting, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: query (with examples), project (optional filter), and limit (default 10). This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 the tool searches across all project memories, with specific use cases (find patterns, decisions, solutions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mem_recall, which might also retrieve memories.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool ('find patterns, decisions, and solutions') and provides query logic (AND, quoted phrases). It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear for its intended purpose.

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