search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavior: automatically searching both project and global cross-project memory when REMEM_GLOBAL_SESSION_KEY is configured. However, it does not mention response format defaults, explain behavior, or any side effects, though these are partly covered by schema descriptions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the usage guidance and global-scope behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 that this is a complex search tool with 7 parameters, nested filters, multiple modes, and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and global-search behavior, but does not mention filtering capabilities, response formats, or explain functionality. Still, the rich input schema compensates for much of this, so an agent can invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 71%, so the schema carries most of the parameter documentation. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'keyword or semantic similarity' maps to the mode parameter, but it does not elaborate on filters, session_key, limit, or format beyond the schema. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search memory') and clarifies the two search modes: keyword and semantic similarity. It also explicitly positions the tool against 'recall', saying search is for when recall is too broad and specific facts are needed, which helps distinguish it from a key sibling.

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 gives a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use this tool when recall is too broad and you need specific facts.' This names the closest alternative and the condition for choosing this tool. It does not explicitly list other alternatives such as knowledge_search or wiki_search, but it provides enough context to guide an agent.

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