recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the search is based on semantic similarity and that results are ranked by relevance ('most relevant'). This adds important context beyond the schema, though it does not mention ordering details or edge cases like empty results.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, method, and result. No wasted words; it earns its place.

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 simplicity, the description covers the core behavior and return value ('returns the most relevant memories'). It lacks mention of result ordering details or relationship to sibling tools, but these are either implied or covered by the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for a search tool with well-documented parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, types). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but as the baseline for high coverage is 3, this is adequate.

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 ('Search') and resource ('memories') with a clear method ('semantic similarity'), which distinctly separates it from siblings like list_memories, remember, and forget. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'semantic similarity' implies this is the tool for similarity-based search over memories, which helps when you need relevant matches rather than exact listing. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_memories, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is only implied.

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