vm_memory_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results default to approved items and that pending search relates to review; it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains.

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 short and not bloated, but it is a set of disjointed fragments that are not front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. Sentences like "Small relevant memory index" consume space without conveying actionable meaning.

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 four parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and an untyped scope object, the description is far too thin. It does not explain return shape, scope semantics, or how the default filter interacts with include_pending.

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 needs to explain all four parameters. It vaguely gestures at pending (include_pending) and scope constraints (scope), but never clarifies query, limit, or the structure and meaning of the scope object, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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?

"Small relevant memory index" does not name a clear verb or state what the tool returns; the search action is inferable only from the tool name. It hints at memory retrieval and an approved-only default, but an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from vm_memory_get or vm_memory_metrics based on this text.

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?

"Default approved only. Pending search is for review" implies when pending records matter, but never states the condition explicitly or names alternatives like vm_memory_get. "Confirm all scope constraints and current checks before reuse" is cautionary language rather than actionable when-to-use guidance.

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