memory_search

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

The description discloses the use of local FTS5 and explicitly states 'no embeddings', giving insight into the search behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks an explicit statement about being read-only or non-destructive, though it is implied.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not cover parameter behavior, return format, or edge cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter semantics beyond the overall purpose. The agent must infer the meaning of 'limit', 'scope', and 'project_id' from their names, which is insufficient.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('memory values'), and specifies the technology ('local FTS5') while distinguishing from embedding-based search. This differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_get and memory_list.

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 for keyword-based search via FTS5 but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_get for exact key retrieval). The context is implied but not articulated.

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