sassy_memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter behavior but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, how filters combine, or what happens with the 'limit' parameter. The name 'search' hints at safety but this is not explicit.

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 concise and well-structured: one clear summary sentence followed by a parameter list. Every line adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 there is an output schema and the tool is a simple search, the description is mostly complete: it covers the main filter parameters and their semantics. Missing details like limit behavior and filter interaction are the only gaps. No annotations increase the burden, but the description handles it reasonably well.

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 must compensate. It documents four of five parameters (query, tags, project, priority) with meaningful detail, such as 'free text search across keys and values' and 'comma-separated tag filter.' However, the 'limit' parameter is not described, and filter combination semantics are omitted.

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 'Search memories by text, tags, project, or priority,' which specifies the verb (search), resource (memories), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling memory tools like remember/recall/forget, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage ('Search memories') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't compare with other memory retrieval tools like sassy_memory_recall or sassy_memory_context, leaving the agent to infer when search is the appropriate choice.

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