Memory search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context about local memory, result limits, and scope modes, though it repeats the read-only trait rather than adding new safety or auth details.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and a well-structured Args block covering the three parameters. Every part contributes useful information given the empty schema descriptions.

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, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers all parameters adequately but leaves scope-mode semantics and when-to-use guidance slightly under-specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining query as keywords or a sentence, limit as maximum hits from 1-20, and scope as 'all', 'session', or 'global'. It does not explain what each scope mode means, leaving a small semantic gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the assistant's local memory store.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling memory_stats and other non-memory search tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

It implies the tool is used for searching local memory, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as memory_stats. There are no when-not conditions or alternative-tool routing.

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