search_memory

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

No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only search and mentions that the 'when' field includes evolution history, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or state changes. Partially adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds specific detail without redundancy.

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 does not specify the return format (e.g., list of full nodes or IDs). It covers input semantics well but lacks output details. Given the tool's complexity and sibling tools, more context on results would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context: space-separated terms are OR-searched by default, mode='and' requires all terms, and the 'when' field includes history. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 searches memory nodes by keywords across specific fields (action, feeling, themes, when), and explains default OR vs AND mode. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall_memory' (likely exact recall) and 'merge_nodes' (modification).

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 explicitly explains the default OR behavior and how to use AND mode. It does not directly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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