search_memory_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches entries moved by prune and specifies the access restriction. It also summarizes the return structure (success, entries, count). However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any other behavioral traits like rate limits.

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 with three short sections: purpose, note about prune, access, Args, and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 simplicity (4 params, 1 required, no enums) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, access, and parameter meanings. However, it lacks examples or edge-case guidance, and the caller_agent_id contradiction slightly undermines completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter: query (search query), tags (optional filter), limit (max results), caller_agent_id (caller agent ID). However, it incorrectly states that caller_agent_id is required (must), while the schema shows it as optional with default null. This contradiction reduces clarity.

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 it searches archived memory entries, specifically those moved by prune. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memory_archive (list all) and restore_from_memory_archive (restore). The verb 'search' and resource 'archived memory' are 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 explicitly states that only Owner and Admin can use this tool, providing a clear access guideline. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to search vs list), nor does it mention when not to use it.

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