memory_search

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It only states it searches and filters, but does not disclose read-only behavior, side effects, performance characteristics, or pagination. For a search tool with 18 parameters, transparency is minimal.

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 two sentences with no fluff. Every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a tool that could benefit from more detail, but conciseness itself is achieved.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, behavior of key parameters, or typical use cases. Agents would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for 2 out of 18 parameters (user_id and scope). The remaining 16 parameters (e.g., search_mode, adaptive_k, explain) are unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 the tool searches memory items using semantic or keyword matching, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_write (write) and memory_get (retrieve by ID). However, it does not explicitly contrast with chatlog_search, which also searches but in chat logs.

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 implies usage for searching and filtering by user_id and scope, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_get for direct retrieval or chatlog_search for chat logs. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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