search_screen_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: matching is conjunctive ('All query words must match'). It omits other behavior an agent needs, such as result ordering, the default limit of 20, or whether matching is case-sensitive.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus the matching rule are front-loaded before the optional filters. Nothing would be lost by trimming 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?

For a 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is serviceable but thin: it never explains the result shape or ordering, and 'limit' is undocumented. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what comes back.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers three of four params – query (all words must match), app_id (bundle ID filter), and day (YYYY-MM-DD format) – but leaves 'limit' completely unexplained, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('captured text and summaries') and adds a discriminating scope note ('All query words must match') that separates it from the semantic sibling ask_memory. It is clear what it does, though the resource label 'captured text and summaries' is slightly abstract.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ask_memory or read_observation, nor when-not to use it. It only notes that filters are optional, which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

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