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 return format (compact results with IDs, source='memory', pagination) and a next_step workflow hint. Though it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the context makes it safe to infer.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return format, and includes a useful sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return values and a follow-up workflow. It differentiates from search_raw. Given the 10 optional parameters already covered by the schema, this is quite complete, though it could have mentioned more edge cases or explicit read-only guarantees.

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 coverage is 100% for all 10 parameters, so baseline 3 applies. The description mentions query/project/type and pagination, but these are already detailed in the schema. It adds only the workflow hint about next_step, not new parameter semantics.

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 curated memories by query/project/type, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling search_raw by directing literal chat recall to that tool.

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?

Explicitly mentions when not to use this tool by recommending search_raw for literal chat recall. The contrast implies when to use this tool for curated memory search, providing clear alternative guidance.

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