search_memories

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

The description indicates the tool performs a search and supports filtering, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, its performance characteristics, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description partially informs behavior but lacks explicit safety context.

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 highly concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key features. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and filtering options. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or sorting, but the overall picture is mostly complete.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description reiterates filtering by scope and tags but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches memory content using full-text search with FTS5 engine. It specifies support for multi-keyword and phrase search, and filtering by scope and tags. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall_memory' or 'list_memories', which may cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'recall_memory' or 'search_messages'. The description is purely functional and does not offer context for selection.

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