memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hybrid search method and the default return format (2-3 sentences per result), and implies that full files are not returned here. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or error behaviors, making it minimally sufficient but not rich.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently introduces key usage nuances. Every clause contributes value, and there is no wasted text or 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?

For a simple search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it searches, how results are formatted, how to adjust detail, and how to get full files. It lacks an explicit mention of limit default or read-only status, but those are either in the schema or implied, so the completeness is adequate.

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 restates the detail levels ('index', 'summary', 'full') but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides for these parameters. It does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'query' semantics, so it adds marginal value.

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's purpose: 'Search the memory index using hybrid vector + FTS search.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('memory index'), and distinguishes itself from memory_get by noting that memory_get is for fetching specific files. This is a clear, differentiated purpose.

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 useful guidance on when to use this tool vs memory_get: 'use memory_get to fetch specific files.' It also explains how to adjust detail levels. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or contrast it with memory_search_multi or other search siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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