memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one meaningful behavioral guarantee: tombstoned (retracted) facts never surface, which tells the agent results always reflect live truth. Beyond that it says nothing about ranking/similarity semantics, how k interacts with scoring, or namespace isolation, so it only partially covers the behavior an agent needs.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope statement front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently written, though the terseness contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere rather than being a model of completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for a three-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter descriptions the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what k or namespace do or how results are ranked from this description alone.

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 adds nothing about any of the three parameters. The role of k (top-k result count, default 5) and namespace (isolation scope, default 'default') is left entirely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and the resource/scope (the current-truth view), and the parenthetical clarifies that retracted facts are excluded. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like memory_audit or memory_assert, but the read-vs-mutate distinction is apparent from the name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over memory_audit, and no stated prerequisites (auth, namespace setup). The parenthetical about tombstoned facts is a behavioral fact, not routing guidance, so an agent must infer that this is the default read path.

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