memory_search_hybrid

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

The description discloses the fallback mechanism and mentions that results indicate candidate limits and fallback status, offering useful behavioral context. Annotations already flag readOnly and idempotent, so the added detail about fallback is sufficient for this dimension.

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 brief and to the point, containing only three sentences. It conveys the essential behavior without verbosity, making it easy to parse and consume.

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 complexity of the 18-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to clarify the meaning of key parameters, expected response structure, or the exact semantics of 'candidate limits' and 'fallback.' This leaves significant contextual gaps for an agent.

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 description provides no explanation of any of the 18 parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by describing obvious or critical parameters such as query, mode, or filters. This leaves agents with minimal understanding of parameter meanings.

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 identifies this as a hybrid search tool (lexical, semantic, or RRF) with optional graph context, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like memory_search or entity_search. The core purpose is evident.

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?

It explains the fallback behavior when provider is unavailable or scope is unindexed, which gives some guidance on when the tool might be used. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative search tools or state preconditions for choosing this hybrid variant over others.

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