search_memory

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which match the read-only search behavior. The description adds context about return structure (project, content, id) and a usage tip (id can be fed into log_event's supersedes), enhancing transparency beyond 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 concise yet comprehensive. It starts with a clear purpose, then lists use cases, parameter guidance, and output details—all in a few sentences without redundancy.

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 (searching multiple sessions/projects), the description covers when, how, and what to expect, plus a practical usage tip. With an output schema present, the description need not detail return schema, but it adds value explaining the id's role.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds valuable context beyond schema: explaining scope meaning in context and how the returned id can be reused, providing extra semantic help.

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 'Search memory across sessions and projects,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'log_event' or 'checkpoint' as the only search 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 provides explicit guidance on when to call (user references past work) with concrete examples. It explains the 'scope' parameter options and their use cases, helping the agent choose correctly.

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