search_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'append-only' and 'search', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it does not modify state, nor does it describe sorting, scoring, or pagination behavior beyond 'limit'.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key behaviors) without sacrificing 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 has no output schema and two parameters, the description provides a basic understanding but does not explain what 'entity matches' means, what the return format looks like, or how the 'limit' parameter interacts with results. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already provides basic meaning for both parameters. The description adds that matching uses 'keyword and entity matches', which provides slight additional context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action (search) and resource (repository memory facts) with the unique qualifier 'append-only'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like semantic_search or hybrid_search, which could also search memory facts.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as semantic_search, search_code, or remember_fact. The description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions and does not mention prerequisites or context for use.

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