memory_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 says 'Search persistent memory' and gives a usage preference; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ranked, how limit is applied, or what happens on no matches.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. Both sentences earn their place, though the content is too sparse in behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

With two parameters, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. The output schema may cover return values, but an agent still lacks guidance on how queries are matched, how limit affects results, and when to choose memory_search over sibling tools.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters. Query and limit are left entirely to schema names and types, with no guidance on query construction, matching behavior, or limit semantics.

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 a clear action ('Search') and resource ('persistent memory'), and the instruction to prefer it before opening files gives concrete context. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling memory_read, but the search action is distinct enough to understand basic purpose.

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 phrase 'Prefer this before opening files' provides explicit when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare it with sibling memory tools like memory_read, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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