Recall search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns 'documents plus standalone facts,' which is useful but does not mention other behavioral traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is succinct. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (documents plus facts). It could mention pagination or result count, but given the limitation parameter is in schema, it's reasonably complete.

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 100% (all 3 parameters described in schema). The description does not add extra meaning beyond schema fields; it only states 'in natural language' for query, which is already implied. 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 verb 'search' and the resource 'user's memory' in natural language. It specifies the output: 'most relevant documents plus standalone facts.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_timeline (likely timeline-based) and add_memory (add operation).

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 advises to 'Use this first to ground any answer or action in what the user actually knows,' providing clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling list indirectly helps.

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