memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'semantic search' and 'composite relevance scoring' without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The agent cannot infer behavioral traits from this minimal text.

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 extremely concise (5 words) but lacks necessary detail. While it avoids unnecessary words, it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations. Score reflects minimal adequacy.

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 complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is being searched (memory entries), how composite scoring works, or how to use parameters effectively. The output schema may compensate partly, but the description itself lacks essential context.

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 description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., tags, limit, status, project, category, token_budget, min_similarity) beyond their names and defaults. No added value for parameter understanding.

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 'Semantic search with composite relevance scoring' clearly indicates a search tool using semantic techniques, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_recall or memory_list that likely use different retrieval methods.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_recall, memory_list, or other search-related siblings. No explicit or implicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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