memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions FTS5, which is already present in the schema. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether there are rate limits, or what the return format is.

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, focused sentence: 'Search memories using full-text search (FTS5)'. Every word contributes to the core purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple search tool with a complete schema, the description provides a minimal viable overview. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention return behavior, pagination, or typical use cases, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 both parameters and their semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, but this is acceptable because the schema already provides complete information.

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 memories using full-text search (FTS5). It identifies the action (search) and resource (memories), and the FTS5 mention hints at a distinct capability compared to sibling tools like memory_read or memory_list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus memory_list, memory_read, or other search tools. The description implies usage through its name but does not state contexts, exclusions, or alternatives.

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