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. It does disclose that search is by keyword or semantic similarity, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention the default hybrid mode, whether results are paginated with a limit, or what the return format looks like. Since search is inherently read-only, that isn't a concern, but more behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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 highly concise: two sentences that state the core function and provide usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It explains the primary purpose and when to use it, but omits mention of available filters, limits, and mode options. Given the moderate complexity of the input schema, a bit more context would make the description more complete.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter guidance. It doesn't explain the 'mode' enum, 'limit', or 'filters' object. While the schema has some descriptions for 'query' and 'mode', parameters like 'limit' and many filter fields lack descriptions. The tool description should compensate but does not.

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's function: 'Search memory by keyword or by semantic similarity.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from recall by indicating when this tool should be preferred ('when recall is too broad and you need specific facts'). This effectively differentiates from the likely sibling 'recall'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when recall is too broad and you need specific facts.' It implies that recall is for broad queries and that this tool is for targeted fact-finding. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions beyond this, but the context is clear enough for a search tool.

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