search_memos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic parameters and a CEL filter example. It lacks disclosure of search behavior (e.g., exact vs fuzzy match), pagination, sorting, or any side effects.

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 very short and front-loaded with the purpose and parameters. While concise, it could benefit from slight restructuring or additional context. No 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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), return values are not needed. However, the description does not address differentiation from sibling 'filter_memos' or explain search nuances. Incomplete for a search tool with two optional params.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning by explaining 'query' as search keyword and 'filter_expr' as CEL expression with an example. This is adequate but minimal, earning a 3.

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 Chinese description clearly states the tool searches memos and lists two parameters. However, it does not distinguish it from the sibling tool 'filter_memos', which likely has similar functionality. A score of 4 reflects clarity without sibling differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'filter_memos'. There is no context on prerequisites, when not to use, or preferred use cases.

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