memory_search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, so the description is only obligated to add nuance. 'Low-level' suggests raw, uncurated results rather than synthesized context, which is a useful hint, but nothing is said about ranking, pagination, default limit behavior, or what distinguishes memories from source passages in the output.

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?

A single short clause with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, the terseness is achieved through omission rather than disciplined editing, so brevity costs information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a six-parameter search tool with zero schema documentation the description leaves too much unstated: what kind/entity/status filter, what limit does, and whether results are ranked or paged.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies the allowed values for scope (all|memories|sources) — useful because scope is a bare string with no enum in the schema — and says nothing about kind, entity, status, or limit, leaving four parameters with no meaning anywhere.

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 and resource: search over memories and/or source passages. The qualifier 'low-level' also hints at how it differs from higher-level retrieval helpers, letting an agent distinguish this primitive search from the other memory_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over memory_get_context, memory_list, or memory_get, nor when it should be avoided. The parenthetical only enumerates scope values, which is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.

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