recall

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint': true, so the description's claim of 'Search' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, side effects). It moderately benefits from the annotation but does not exceed it.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured as a docstring with Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters, the description covers all inputs and basic return format. It lacks details on pagination behavior (though limit is given) and sorting, but overall it is complete enough for typical usage. The output schema is not provided, but the description summarizes return values adequately.

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%, but the detailed Args block explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and behavior (e.g., 'explain' returns scoring breakdown). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 the tool performs semantic search on memories using natural language. It specifies the verb 'search', resource 'memories', and method 'semantically', distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_memories' (exact listing) and 'remember' (storing).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_memories' for exact match or 'query_triples' for structured queries). It implies semantic search but lacks direct guidance on when-not-to-use or comparisons with siblings.

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