Retrieve past decisions, memories, and files from your AI knowledge base using keyword or semantic search, providing relevant context for current queries.
Search the Cartridge Knowledge Base for memories, decisions, and files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| use_semantic | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search', implying a read operation, but does not explain return format, pagination, semantic vs. non-semantic behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, which is good. However, it is under-specified; it does not convey enough information to be considered appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and no other documentation. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.
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 absence of annotations, an output schema, and schema descriptions, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, how limit and use_semantic affect behavior, or any edge cases. This is critically incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (query, limit, use_semantic). The description does not compensate for the missing schema information, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.
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 states a clear verb ('search') and a specific resource ('Cartridge Knowledge Base') with what it searches ('memories, decisions, and files'). This distinguishes it from generic search tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from memory-related siblings like company_memory_search or trusted_memory_recall, which may also search similar content. Overall, the purpose is understandable but could be more precise.
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 its many siblings. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient given the large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.