memory_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions search methods and filtering but fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. Important behaviors like idempotency and result handling are missing.

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 of 14 words, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 18 parameters. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less useful despite being short.

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 high parameter count (18), lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter usage patterns, or provide any examples, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, yet the description only explains the query parameter implicitly and mentions user_id and scope. The remaining 15 parameters (e.g., k, as_of, search_mode) are left entirely undefined, providing minimal added value 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 tool as searching across memory items using semantic similarity or keyword matching. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_write and files_search by specifying the resource (memory items) and the dual search methods.

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 context by mentioning filtering by user_id and scope for isolation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like memory_get for specific retrieval or when not to use it.

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