search_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only and non-deterministic nature is covered. The description adds that the search is semantic and targets shared memory, but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization, or rate limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context and a reference to a sibling tool. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information.

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?

While the description explains the purpose and usage context, it lacks information about the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should have mentioned what the search returns (e.g., identifiers, summaries) to fully inform the agent. This is a notable gap.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides clear descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score 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 that this tool performs semantic search over the shared memory library, and distinguishes it from siblings like read_memory_asset by specifying that after a hit, the user should use read_memory_asset to read the full text. It also gives usage context outside start_* tasks.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for proactively finding historical bug fixes or reusable patterns outside start_* workflows, and directs users to read_memory_asset after a hit. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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