RecallNest

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

Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden. Explicitly states 'Read-only' for safety disclosure and details return structure ('asset type, title, scope, creation date, and file path'). Could mention pagination behavior or empty result handling, but covers essential behavioral traits.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose, safety flag, usage example, and return value documentation. Front-loaded with specific action and resource. Every sentence earns its place with high information density.

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 single-parameter list operation with no output schema, description adequately compensates by documenting return fields and read-only status. Complexity is low; description covers all necessary dimensions (purpose, safety, usage, output) without 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, establishing baseline 3. Description implies recency/sorting behavior but does not add parameter-specific semantics (e.g., why one might use max 50 vs default 12) beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Specific verb ('List') with clear resource ('structured memory assets') and explicit scoping ('pinned memories and distilled briefs'). Distinguishes from sibling list_pins by indicating it covers multiple asset types, not just pins.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use when you need an inventory of persisted knowledge artifacts') with concrete example ('before creating a new brief to avoid duplicates'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives (e.g., search_memory), but the contextual example effectively guides selection.

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