search_memwyre

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool performs hybrid semantic search and returns up to 'limit' relevant memories, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, result ordering, or any access constraints. For a read-oriented search tool this is adequate but thin.

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 compact and well-organized: a single purpose statement followed by a minimal Args block. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the core action is stated first. No filler or redundant text is present.

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 is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so extensive return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the core purpose and both parameters adequately. It lacks explicit routing to sibling tools or note about behavioral nuances, but for a lightweight search operation it is largely complete.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains 'query' as a natural language search query or topic, and 'limit' as the maximum number of memories to return, including its default. This adds real value beyond the raw schema, though it could provide more detail on constraints or examples.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Search your Memwyre knowledge base and persistent memories using hybrid semantic search.' This explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings like save_memory, list_memories, and get_document by indicating query-based retrieval rather than saving, listing, or fetching a specific document.

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 when to use the tool: when a natural-language query is needed to find relevant memories. However, it offers no explicit comparison to alternatives, such as using list_memories to browse all memories or get_document to retrieve a known document. Usage context is present but not elaborated, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than clear exclusions.

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