memory_search

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

No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the search algorithm but omits safety profile (e.g., read-only or destructive), authorization needs, or side effects. The combination of two sources is mentioned but not the implications.

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 short sentence, which is concise but not well-structured. It provides minimal information in a compact form, but every word is not necessary given the lack of clarity.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks return value details, usage context, limitations, and integration with sibling tools. The agent cannot infer correct usage from this description alone.

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?

All three parameters have no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'query', 'project_id', or 'limit' mean or how they affect the search. It adds no semantic 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 specifies the verb 'search' and the resources 'semantic memories' and 'decision/knowledge table text', and includes the technique 'local embedding cosine ranking'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'semantic_search_memory' by mentioning the combination of two sources, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semantic_search_memory' or 'search_and_inject_memory'. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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