RecallNest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses read-only nature and output format ('structured briefing with citations'). However, it omits details about retrieval behavior (how ranking works across scopes) or performance characteristics (latency for large memory sets).

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?

Four tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), usage guidelines (sentence 2), output format (sentence 3), and safety guarantees (sentence 4). Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

Comprehensive for a 6-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description compensates for missing output schema by describing return value structure ('structured briefing with citations'). Minor gap: could elaborate on retrieval profile behaviors or scope inheritance given complexity of filtering options.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'source map' which loosely hints at citation tracking, but does not add semantic context for specific parameters (e.g., how 'profile' tunes ranking weights or interaction between 'scope' and 'allScopes').

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 opens with a specific verb ('Distill') and resource ('memories'), clearly defining the output format ('compact briefing with source map, key takeaways, and reusable evidence'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_memory by contrasting 'synthesized summary' with 'raw search results'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you need a synthesized summary of stored knowledge on a topic rather than raw search results'), providing clear selection criteria against alternatives. Also clarifies safety profile ('Read-only — does not modify stored memories') to distinguish from store/update siblings like store_memory or batch_store.

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