memory_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Fuzzy search memories' and does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, whether it requires authentication, or what the result format is. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool that may be called by an AI agent.

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 extremely short ('Fuzzy search memories'), which keeps it concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. A useful description would at least mention essential scope or parameters without wasting 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must provide substantial context. It fails to do so, offering only a vague one-liner. The agent has no way to understand the search semantics, filtering options, or expected return values, making the description inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the meaning of parameters. It does not. The schema itself lists 'query', 'tags', 'type', and 'limit', but the description gives no hints about their semantics (e.g., whether 'query' is a full-text search string or a substring, how 'tags' interact with the search, or what 'type' values mean).

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 uses a specific verb 'search' and resource 'memories', but the term 'fuzzy' is vague and does not clarify what is searched (content, tags, metadata) or how results are ranked. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_read, which also operate on memories.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_list or memory_read. There is no mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or recommended filters, leaving the agent to guess when a search is appropriate.

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