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

The description explains visibility rules (only PUBLIC posts and own posts), default/max radius, and output fields. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, though it could note that it is a read operation.

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 a single paragraph but front-loads key info: radius, default, limit, output format, visibility, region filtering, and use case. It is compact without wasted words, though slightly long.

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?

The description covers most aspects: return format, visibility, filtering by radius and region, and usage context. However, it omits explanation of the required 'space' parameter and lacks an output schema, leaving some gaps.

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 description must explain parameters. It covers radiusM (default 20m, max 64m) and regionId (from list_regions), but the required 'space' parameter is not described at all, leaving a significant gap.

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 it recalls memory posts within a radius of the user's position, with details on sorting and limit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'recall_nearby_memories' implicitly via 'memory posts' versus 'memories', but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 explicit use case: 'to re-read what was placed here before deciding what to build or post next' and recommends pairing with list_regions. It explains how to filter by region, but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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