recall

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: it's a read-only operation, uses a 4-way hybrid search, reranks with cross-encoder, costs 1 operation per call, returns empty list on no match, and returns relevance scores between 0-1. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with purpose, then algorithm, usage guidance, examples, return format, cost, and error handling – all in logical order. Every sentence contributes meaning; no filler. Front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description explains return format (memories with relevance scores 0-1, up to limit, empty list on no match). It covers behavioral context (cost, algorithm). However, it does not detail the structure of each memory (e.g., fields like text, timestamp). A minor gap, but overall complete for most use cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. It mentions 'limit' in context of results, but the schema already describes each parameter similarly. No net gain in parameter understanding from the description.

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 persistent memory by meaning, returning the most relevant past memories ranked by semantic similarity.' It identifies the specific verb (search) and resource (memory), and distinguishes it from siblings (context) by explaining when to use recall vs context.

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 usage guidance: 'Use recall (not context) when you need to answer a specific question... Do not use for broad session bootstrapping (use context instead).' It also gives concrete query examples like 'what language does the user prefer?' and explains when to use higher or lower limit values.

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