memory_search

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hybrid retrieval method (keyword + semantic), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or potential side effects. 'Search' implies read-only, but this is not confirmed, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Search the user's shared SecondBrain') and includes a usage note. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no waste or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks any mention of return values, the meaning of 'top', or whether the operation is read-only. The purpose and usage are clear, but the overall context is incomplete for the agent to invoke it without assumptions.

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%, and the description does not mention either 'query' or 'top'. No meaning is added beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer that 'query' is the search text and 'top' is the number of results, which is not explicitly stated.

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 identifies the tool as a search operation on 'the user's shared SecondBrain' using 'hybrid keyword and local semantic retrieval', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get or memory_recent. The verb 'Search' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 phrase 'before substantive tasks' provides a clear contextual recommendation for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is a clear context but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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