nexo_memory_search

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'evidence-first results' but does not explain what that means (e.g., ordering, filtering, or ranking). There is no mention of side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's runtime behavior.

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 concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure (no headings, no parameter breakdown). While brevity is positive, the content is too sparse to be informative. A slightly longer description with structured details would improve it.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the 'evidence-first' concept, parameter usage, return format, or how it differs from other memory search tools. The agent would lack the necessary context to use it 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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema, and the description does not elaborate on any parameter. For example, 'depth' and 'time_range' have defaults but no explanation of acceptable values or semantics. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names and types.

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 identifies the tool as searching 'Memory Observations v2' and highlights 'evidence-first results', which implies a specific ordering. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like nexo_memory_answer or nexo_learning_search, leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool over others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nexo_memory_observation_list or nexo_learning_search. The description lacks any usage context, conditions, or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer applicability.

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