memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the search scope and ranking algorithm, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the result format is, or any potential side effects. This is partial transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key behavioral details. There is no filler; every term (full-text, all session contexts, FTS5, BM25) adds value.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and explicit alternatives, the description is moderately complete. It defines the scope and ranking but does not address return structure, filtering nuances, or how it relates to the many sibling search tools, leaving some gaps for the agent to resolve.

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 three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Full-text search') and the resource ('all session contexts'), and specifies the method ('FTS5 with BM25 ranking'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_semantic or search_temporal, which target different search modes.

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 use for keyword-based full-text search across all session contexts, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or point to alternatives. The context is clear enough for an informed agent, but explicit guidance is missing.

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