Retrieve Context Memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'semantically similar' aspect, indicating embedding-based search, but does not disclose return format, potential limitations, or how it handles edge cases like empty results.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values, which it does not. It also omits context on how tag/project filters interact and what happens with no matches. However, for a straightforward search tool, the description is minimally adequate.

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%, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., query, tag, project, top_k). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancing the schema information.

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 uses the verb 'Search' with a specific resource ('semantically similar information in memory'), clearly stating what the tool does. It subtly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like semantic_code_search by scoping to 'memory', though it could be more explicit about exclusions.

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 over alternatives such as semantic_code_search, pin_context, or clear_context. It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool's name.

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