search_memories_advanced

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the five different search strategies and their purposes. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, but the description provides operational details about how searches work differently based on strategy. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 reasonably structured with strategy explanations and usage examples, but includes redundant keywords ('고급 검색, 찾아, 스마트 검색, advanced search, find memories') that don't add value. The content is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more concise by removing the keyword list.

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 complex search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about search strategies and usage. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (memory objects, summaries, etc.) or any limitations like pagination or performance characteristics. The strategy explanations help compensate for the missing output schema.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of different 'strategy' enum values, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for other parameters like 'query', 'limit', or 'category' beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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 performs 'advanced multi-strategy memory search' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'recall_memory', which might also retrieve memories. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 clear context about when to use different strategies (keyword for traditional search, graph_traversal for related memories, etc.) and includes usage examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_memories' or 'recall_memory' from the sibling list.

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