search_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search' and gives no information about whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur (if any), what the response format is, or any limits (e.g., maximum top_k). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safety or behavior.

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 one-sentence description is extremely brief, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no details or structure that help the agent, and it does not 'earn its place'—it merely restates the tool's name. Being short is not a virtue when it omits essential information.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what results are returned, how to interpret them, or how parameters influence the search. The complexity warrants a more detailed description, and this one leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters (query, top_k, category) but does not mention any of them. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's raw type definitions, leaving the agent with no idea of what values are valid or how they affect the search.

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 '搜索历史记忆' clearly states a verb ('search') and a resource ('historical memory'), distinguishing it from tools like record_observation or get_stats. However, 'memory' is somewhat ambiguous—it could refer to observations, conversation signals, or other stored data—and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar search_skill tool. Still, the core purpose is understandable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention search_skill, which likely also queries stored knowledge, nor does it specify any conditions or exclusions. An agent has no information about which tool is appropriate for a given scenario.

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