search_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 discloses key behavioral traits such as supporting text search with optional date filtering and performance implications of the source parameter. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or result format, leaving gaps for a search tool with no 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?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently convey key usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the search scope and performance tips but lacks details on authentication, result structure, pagination, or error cases, which are important for a search tool without annotations or output schema.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the source parameter's impact on performance and the optional date filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 an agent's memory') and resources ('across both archival passages and conversation messages'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_archival_memory' which only searches one source. It explicitly mentions the dual memory sources, making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for usage with the recommendation to 'use source parameter to search only archival or messages for better performance,' which guides when to use specific parameter values. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_archival_memory' or 'list_messages,' missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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