memory_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says '搜尋' (search), which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or disclose other behavioral traits like permission requirements, result limits, or whether it returns full records. The description adds only the context of 'Archival Memory' and a use case, which is insufficient for a safe and informed usage.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the main purpose and a use case. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what results look like, how the search behaves, and how it differs from sibling memory_recall. The description does none of this, leaving significant ambiguity about the tool's role within the memory tool family.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description itself does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (搜尋/search) and the resource (Archival Memory), and specifies the outcome (找出相關的過去記錄/find relevant past records). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the 'Archival' memory, though it does not explicitly contrast with memory_recall.

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 provides a clear use case: '遇到類似問題時參考過去的解法' (reference past solutions when encountering similar problems). This gives context for when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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