memory_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral trait that only partial data is returned (軽量インデックスのみ), explains the token-saving optimization strategy, and clarifies the return structure. Minor gap: doesn't specify behavior when no matches found.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: (1) purpose declaration, (2) critical limitation + alternative tool, (3) optimization rationale. Front-loaded with 【重要】alert and efficient Japanese prose. Every sentence 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?

Strong coverage for a 5-parameter search tool with no output schema: explains return format (lightweight index), workflow integration with memory_get_detail, and cost optimization. Lacks only error-handling context (e.g., empty results behavior) to be perfect.

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 100% (all 5 parameters fully documented), so baseline score applies. Description focuses on behavioral guidance rather than repeating parameter details already covered in schema, which is appropriate prioritization.

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?

Opens with specific verb+resource (メモリを検索する) and immediately distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying it returns only lightweight index (ID, title, tags) rather than full content, explicitly naming memory_get_detail as the alternative for full data.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance (フル内容が必要な場合は...memory_get_detailに渡すこと) and describes the two-step workflow (search IDs first, fetch details selectively) to optimize token usage, directly addressing the alternative tool.

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