search_memory

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 storage location and match semantics ('matched against title, content, and tags'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is purely read-only, how results are returned, or any limitations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single precise sentence, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds information: location, search dimensions, and parameter semantics. There is no 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and all four parameters, and an output schema exists to define return values. It is sufficiently complete for invoking the tool correctly, though it could mention behavior when no filters are supplied or explicitly flag read-only status.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter: workspace_dir's role and default, query's matching behavior, tag filtering, and kind filtering with allowed enum values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Searches the workspace Memory Vault' and identifies the search dimensions ('keyword query, tag, or entry kind'). It clearly distinguishes itself from likely siblings like read_memory by focusing on search rather than direct retrieval.

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 makes the use case clear: agent should use this when searching memory by query, tag, or kind. It provides relevant context about the search scope and filters, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like read_memory.

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