AI-Collab-Memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions search capabilities but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (format, pagination), error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is functional but lacks transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 perfectly concise - two clear sentences that directly explain the tool's function and search parameters without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the search dimensions.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'research' entails, the format of returned results, whether searches are case-sensitive, how multiple parameters interact, or any limitations. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context about the tool's behavior and results.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by confirming the three search dimensions (keyword, tag, contributor) but doesn't provide additional semantics like search logic (AND/OR), partial matching, or parameter interactions beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose as 'searching saved research' with specific search criteria (keywords, tags, authors). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'save_research' and 'log_work' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or logging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search functions that might exist in other contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare with sibling tools like 'get_work_log' or 'load_checkpoint' that might also retrieve information. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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