search_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions that diagnostics=true adds per-stage timing fields, but it does not state that the operation is read-only (non-destructive), nor does it explain the behavior of filters like type or project, or how results are ordered. The information is partially transparent but lacks full disclosure of expected behavior.

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 concise: two sentences plus a usage tip. It front-loads the purpose and then provides parameter details. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the main use case and key parameters. It explains query modes, status filters, and diagnostics. However, it does not explain the 'type' and 'project' parameters, nor does it state that the operation is read-only. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but some behavioral gaps remain.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for several parameters: it explains that 'query' is required, 'mode' defaults to hybrid, 'limit' defaults to 5, 'status' can be comma-separated, and 'diagnostics' triggers timing fields. However, it omits explanations for 'type' and 'project' parameters, meaning some parameters remain underspecified.

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's purpose: 'Search local Codex memory with keyword, semantic, or hybrid retrieval.' It specifies the verb (search), the resource (local Codex memory), and the retrieval modes, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like read_memory (single retrieval) or write_memory (writing).

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 provides useful tips for usage, such as using comma-separated status values and enabling diagnostics for troubleshooting. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_memory or memory_hygiene, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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