memory_search

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

The annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that deleted and expired memories are excluded by default, which is behavioral information not covered by annotations. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, demonstrating transparency about default behavior.

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 concise sentences that convey the essential search mechanism and default exclusions. There is no verbosity or irrelevant information, and the structure is clear and to the point.

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 lacks information about the return format or output structure, as there is no output schema. It also does not explain the many filtering parameters or pagination controls. While the search behavior is described, the missing context about what the tool returns and how to utilize the parameters makes it incomplete.

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 schema has 16 parameters with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain any parameter, such as query, tags, sort, or filters. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate by providing any parameter semantics, making it extremely difficult for an agent to use the parameters effectively.

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 that the tool searches using FTS5 with literal AND terms and BM25 ranking, which precisely defines its purpose. It also mentions small importance/recency boosts, providing a specific and unambiguous function. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 implies usage through its search behavior but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like memory_search_hybrid. It mentions the default exclusion of deleted and expired memories, which gives some guidance on when to use it or adjust parameters, but it lacks a clear 'when to use this tool vs others' statement.

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