memory_search_vector

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the vector backend is disabled by default and that JSON remains canonical, which hints at fallback behavior but does not state what happens when disabled. This provides some context beyond annotations but lacks richness.

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 concise, with two short sentences and the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence about JSON canonical adds a caveat but is somewhat cryptic. It is not padded, though the ambiguity slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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?

With sibling search tools and a disabled-by-default backend, the description should clarify when vector search is useful and what happens when disabled. It does not explain return behavior or fallback, and the ambiguous 'JSON remains canonical' leaves key operational context missing. The available output schema and annotations do not cover these gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the query, limit, or backend parameters. The schema itself offers only a brief description for backend, so the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics almost entirely to the structural names in 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 phrase 'vector-style search' clearly identifies a search operation on memories, and the title 'Vector-style Search Memories' reinforces the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_search_archive, though 'vector-style' implies a specialized variant.

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 over the sibling memory_search or memory_search_archive. The phrases 'Optional' and 'Disabled by default' hint at availability but do not offer selection criteria or exclusions.

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