memory_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the hybrid search behavior, returns a 'ranked list of MemoryRecord with a raw RRF relevance score (typically 0.01–0.04).' This is informative, though it does not cover potential edge cases like empty results or rate limits.

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 well-structured with clear headings and concisely covers purpose, usage, and return format. Every sentence is justified and non-redundant.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description effectively explains the tool's role, when to use it, and what it returns. It could be more thorough on interpreting the score, but it is sufficient for a search tool.

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% (low), but the description adds some value beyond the schema, such as explaining the query as 'Natural language query. Hybrid (semantic + keyword) search' and noting typical score ranges for min_score. However, many parameters (tags, type, entities, occurred_from, occurred_to) lack additional explanation.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'Hybrid semantic + keyword search over the user's memories.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use (e.g., 'do you remember…') and when not to use (use memory_get or memory_recall instead).

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide clear context. It lists alternative tools (memory_get, memory_recall) and specific scenarios, offering strong guidance for an AI agent.

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