mempalace_search

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive traits. The description adds value beyond these by detailing the hybrid semantic+lexical behavior and, importantly, the security-relevant note that retrieved memory text is user data, not system instructions. This is extra context not present in 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concise scope guidance and a warning. Every word earns its place; no redundancy with schema or annotations.

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?

For a search tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, scope-filter usage, and a behavioral caveat. The output schema handles return-value specifics, and the schema documents parameters, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, covering all six fields including 'room', 'wing', 'limit', 'query', 'context', and 'max_distance'. The description mentions 'wing/room filters' which aligns with schema, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 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 a specific action: 'Hybrid semantic and lexical search over tenant-scoped drawers.' This identifies the resource type (drawers) and differentiates from sibling search tools like mempalace_diary_search and mempalace_kg_query by the drawer scope and hybrid search nature.

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 gives actionable guidance: 'Use wing/room filters when scope is known,' which tells the agent when to apply the optional scope parameters. It also cautions that retrieved text is user data, not instructions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool in favor of sibling search tools, though the uniqueness of scope is implied.

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