search_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a significant behavioral trait—the search fuses dense vector, lexical FTS5, graph spreading activation, and ACT-R decay—but it does not mention side effects, read-only nature, result ordering, pagination, or the effect of the hybrid flag.

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 two tight sentences with the primary verb and resource front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, and the technical detail is packed efficiently into a colon-introduced list without 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?

Despite having an output schema, the definition omits parameter semantics and usage guidance for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage. An agent would be uncertain about the purpose of the hybrid toggle and the project filter, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 needed to compensate, but it defines none of the four parameters. Query and limit are self-explanatory from their names, but hybrid is ambiguous given the tool itself is already described as hybrid, and project's filtering semantics are unspecified.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Search memory') and specifies the distinctive 4-Way RRF fusion mechanism, making the tool's core function obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_memories or query_graph, but the technical detail prevents it from being a generic or tautological description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no exclusions, and no alternative recommendations. It focuses entirely on the internal search mechanism, leaving an agent to infer use cases from tool names alone.

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