zhiji_memory_search

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

The description details the internal search pipeline (11-stage hybrid search), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe. As no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it is mostly transparent but lacks explicit assurance of no side effects.

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 function and technical detail, followed by usage context. Every part is informative and no words are wasted.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, how it works, and when to use it. It mentions the return format (memory fragments with source and score). However, it does not specify pagination or sorting behavior, which could be useful 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about return format (source and score) but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the three parameters. It does not compensate for any gaps, as there are none.

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 a hybrid search in long-term memory using full-text trigram, vector semantics, and time decay, returning memory fragments with source and score. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'workspace_assemble' by being lighter and focused on recall without reasoning.

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 says '比 workspace_assemble 轻量,适合只要召回不要推理的场景' (lighter than workspace_assemble, suitable for scenarios needing only recall without reasoning), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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