search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the fundamental search function and does not mention that the tool is read-only, does not modify memory, or disclose any rate limits, response formats, or side effects. The behavioral transparency is minimal beyond the inherent implication of 'search'.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the specific verb and resource, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a nested 'filters' object and multiple modes, yet the description provides no information about return values, filter usage, or mode differences. Without an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly use the tool, especially for complex searches.

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 schema coverage is 60%, with descriptions missing for 'limit' and 'filters' at the top level. The tool description adds some meaning for 'mode' ('keyword or semantic similarity') but does not explain the meaning of limit, filters, or the hybrid mode. The description offers marginal value beyond the schema but does not compensate for the coverage gaps.

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 searches memory using either keyword or semantic similarity, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('memory'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'recall' tool by noting it is for when recall is too broad and specific facts are needed.

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 usage context: 'Use this tool when recall is too broad and you need specific facts.' This implies when not to use it (when recall is not too broad) and references the 'recall' tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or formal exclusions.

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