aiworkhub_manager_ai_memory_search

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond annotations — results are drawn from a 'canonical' corpus and are 'bounded' — but leaves the bound magnitude and ranking/semantic behavior undefined.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. However, it is under-specified rather than truly concise — the brevity comes at the cost of routing and parameter guidance an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 0% parameter coverage and many similarly named memory/context/KB tools, the description omits the differentiation and query-format information an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 carries full burden for both parameters. 'Bounded' only loosely gestures at the limit parameter, and nothing explains whether 'query' is keyword, natural language, or embedding-based, which materially changes how an agent should phrase it.

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?

States a verb and resource ('AI Memory search') scoped as read-only and 'bounded', so the basic action is identifiable. But 'canonical' and 'bounded' are unexplained jargon, and the description never distinguishes this search from close siblings such as ai_memory_get, ai_memory_related, or kb_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus ai_memory_get (fetch by identity) or ai_memory_related (graph traversal), nor on exclusions. The 'MANAGER READ' prefix hints at a role gate but does not tell the agent when the tool is the right choice.

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