zahadun_memory_search

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

The description mentions ripgrep over a directory, giving some implementation insight and indicating a read-only search operation. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose output behavior, error cases, or whether it modifies anything, so it only partially covers behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and method, earning its place.

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 tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description only partially explains them. It also does not clarify how this search differs from memory_read or what 'temat' does, leaving significant gaps. The presence of an output schema does not offset the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'tor' relates to a directory ('katalog toru') and that 'fraza' relates to content ('tresci'), but it does not explain the parameters explicitly or clarify the role of 'temat'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 it searches memory mesh by content, using a specific method (ripgrep over directory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_read (read specific memory) and memory_topics (list topics), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 finding memories by content but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like memory_read or memory_topics. There is no exclusion or condition given, so usage guidance is only implied.

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