memory_search

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=true), so the description need not repeat that. It adds some behavioral context by limiting the search to 'local memory anchors' and 'one-hop active graph context', but it does not disclose result pagination, matching semantics, or other runtime behavior. This is adequate but 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carres meaning: 'Search' gives the operation, 'local' scopes it, and 'one-hop active graph context' defines the extent of results.

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 simple read-only search tool with one required parameter, the description is mostly complete for invocation. However, with no output schema present, it does not fully describe the return format or how 'active graph context' is represented, leaving some ambiguity for an agent interpreting results.

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?

The input schema only shows a required string 'query' with no meaningful description. The tool description minimally compensates by clarifying that the query searches local memory anchors and their one-hop graph context. It does not specify query syntax, matching behavior, or format expectations, so the meaning is only partially covered.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('local memory anchors'), and a scope qualifier ('one-hop active graph context'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling memory tools like remember, memory_correct, memory_feedback, and forget, which are write/destructive operations.

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 verb 'Search' implicitly conveys this is the tool for retrieving memory content rather than mutating it, but the description does not state when to prefer it over a sibling or mention any exclusions/alternatives. Usage is implied by the operation name, not explicitly guided.

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