Open Kioku Search Memory

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about the append-only nature of the store and the specific data returned (fact text, source, confidence, timestamp, entities). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Reasonably concise and front-loaded with purpose and exclusion guidance. Some repetition of return fields could be tightened, but structure is logical 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?

With output schema present, the description covers the tool's main behavior, constraints, and alternatives. It could mention more about matching semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, partial match) but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., query matches 'fact text and entity names', limit defaults to 20) but mostly repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as a search over an append-only repository memory store for facts by keyword/entity, listing return fields. It explicitly distinguishes from source code and index search tools, specifying sibling tools to use instead.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (retrieve memory facts) and when not to use (source code, live index data), with alternative tools named (search_code, hybrid_search, symbol tools, remember_fact for writes).

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