memcp_search

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

The description mentions auto-selection of search method (BM25 > keyword) but lacks disclosure of other behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides minimal behavioral 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet points for parameters and includes an optional installation note. Every sentence contributes value without being overly verbose.

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 6 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavioral auto-selection. It adequately explains the source and scope options, though could elaborate on what 'memory insights' and 'context chunks' are if not obvious from context.

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 includes an Args section that explains each parameter (query, limit, source, max_tokens, project, scope) with defaults and allowed values, adding significant meaning beyond the input schema which only has types and defaults. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Search across memory insights and context chunks,' specifying the verb (search) and the resources (memory insights, context chunks). Among sibling tools like memcp_recall and memcp_related, this tool is distinct as a general search across multiple sources.

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 for searching across memories and contexts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memcp_recall or memcp_related. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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