memory_search

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

The description adds some behavioral detail: results are ranked and search spans content and tags. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it does not modify memories, nor does it mention default limits or pagination. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and only partially fulfills it.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the verb 'Search', and includes key details without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

As a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on output format or behavior when no results are found, and the lack of comparison to siblings makes the overall context incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with clear descriptions for 'query' and 'limit'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 searches memories by keyword and returns ranked results across content and tags. It is specific and action-oriented, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_related, so it loses a point.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of memory_recall or memory_related, nor any exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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