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 that the tool 'Supports both semantic (meaning-based) and keyword search,' which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what the return value looks like, or any side effects. Moderate but not rich transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then capability. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 provides purpose and usage guidance, but since there is no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of memories, ordering, pagination). It also does not mention the limit/tags parameters, though these are documented in the schema. Adequate but with some gaps.

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 detailed descriptions for query, tags, and limit. The description repeats the semantic/keyword matching already present in the query parameter description, so it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Search your memory for relevant information' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists concrete use cases (start of task, checking past discussions, referencing past work) that distinguish it from sibling tools like memory_get, memory_store, etc.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use this at the start of a task to recall relevant context, when you need to check if something was previously discussed, or when the user references past work.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the listed use cases give clear context.

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