search_archival_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the search returns 'passages most similar to the query' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no matches are found. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a search tool with 8 parameters.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the purpose, describes the return, and provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and alternatives but lacks details about return format, pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions semantic similarity for the query but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('search', 'returns') and resource ('agent's archival memory'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_passages (text-based search) and create_passage (adding memories). It precisely defines the semantic similarity matching approach.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives: 'Use list_passages for text-based search or pagination, create_passage to add memories.' This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus other options.

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