search_memories

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

Description discloses key behaviors: fuzzy matching, typo tolerance, word-order shifts, and returns relevance scores with snippets. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden well. However, does not explicitly state read-only nature 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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds matching details, third explains use case. No redundant words; every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers search behavior and output format (scores, snippets). Minor omission: does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, but given the search context, this is implied.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying that the query parameter supports fuzzy/typo-tolerant matching, and that limit has a default of 10. This enhances 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?

Description clearly defines the tool as performing fuzzy search across name, description, and body, with typo tolerance and partial matching. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_memories' (listing) and 'get_memory' (exact retrieval).

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 phrase 'Use this for human-readable browsing' provides a clear context for when to use the tool. Implicitly contrasts with other tools (e.g., exact search or verification) but does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use.

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