search_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions optional filters and scoring, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are sorted, or what happens with null parameters. The mention of 'decay score threshold' hints at some scoring mechanism but doesn't explain 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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool, though the opening sentence could be more specific about what type of search this performs (semantic vs keyword).

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 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics and return format. However, for a search tool with complex filtering options and sibling alternatives, it lacks sufficient context about behavioral characteristics, performance considerations, and differentiation from other search tools on the server.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic semantic information for all 6 parameters in the Args section, explaining what each parameter controls. However, it doesn't provide deeper context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical examples of how to use them effectively together.

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 searches for memories with optional filters and scoring, providing a specific verb (search) and resource (memories). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_unified' or 'open_memories', which appear to be related search operations.

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 like 'search_unified' or 'open_memories'. It mentions optional filters but gives no context about appropriate use cases or when other tools might be more suitable.

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