memory_contextual_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it does not describe any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission needs, or what happens during retrieval. The agent cannot infer safety or performance implications.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief to be useful, lacking critical details. Every word should earn its place; here, 'intelligent ranking' adds little without explanation.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain 'contextual' retrieval, ranking algorithm, return format, or how to handle errors. The agent lacks essential information 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 description coverage is 33% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. For 3 parameters including two empty objects ('context' and 'options'), the description should clarify their roles, but it does not. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate parameters.

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 the verb 'perform' and resource 'contextual memory retrieval' with 'intelligent ranking,' which is clear but vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory_recall,' 'memory_similar,' or 'memory_knowledge_graph,' which all involve memory retrieval. The purpose is adequate but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusions. Given the large set of memory-related siblings, this is a significant gap.

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