memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait — results are compact/truncated and require a follow-up call for full content — which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about result ordering, scoring, empty-result behavior, or the fact that the default scope is the current working directory.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the follow-up routing hint. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description sensibly covers the one return-value fact that matters most: results are compact and memory_get_details provides full content. It is slightly thin on result structure and ordering, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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%, including the fts5 operator semantics and limit bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific verb and resource (search project memories) and adds the mechanism (full-text search), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It differentiates from memory_get_details via the compactness/full-content contrast, but does not distinguish itself from list-oriented siblings like memory_recent or memory_topics.

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 pointer to memory_get_details gives clear follow-up guidance once results are in hand, which is a useful routing rule. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over memory_recent, memory_topics, or memory_stats, and no exclusions or preconditions.

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