Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating it's a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what the tool does (filtered search) and mentions it returns a 'filtered ranked list,' which gives some behavioral insight beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidelines, then lists parameters with helpful examples, and ends with return information. While efficient, the parameter listing is somewhat redundant given the schema's completeness, slightly reducing conciseness.

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's complexity (8 parameters, search functionality) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters with examples, and return format. However, it could benefit from more detail on behavioral aspects like error handling or result structure to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, listing parameter names with brief examples (e.g., 'engineering' for domain) but no additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search the user's knowledge base with metadata filters.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('knowledge base'), and distinguishing feature ('with metadata filters'), which differentiates it from the sibling 'search_notes' tool that lacks this explicit filtering capability.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you want to narrow results by domain...' It provides clear context for usage (narrowing results with metadata filters) and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like 'search_notes' (which presumably lacks filtering) and 'search_across_vaults' (which involves multiple vaults).

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