Search Memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's 'semantic' adds a useful nuance about natural language matching. However, it doesn't disclose ranking, scope, or result limitations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 six-word sentence, exceptionally concise and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It contains zero fluff 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?

With 6 parameters, multiple scoping filters, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It doesn't explain how to scope the search, what semantic match means, or how results are ordered/limited, leaving an agent guessing about critical behavioral details.

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 descriptions cover 5 of 6 parameters (83%), leaving only limit undocumented. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the word 'semantic', which is insufficient to compensate for limit's lack of description.

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 a semantic search operation over memories, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from memory_add/get/update/delete, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from memory_list, which could overlap in purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_search alternatives like memory_list or memory_get. It doesn't mention scoping by session, agent, or cross-session behavior, which the schema parameters suggest.

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