RecallNest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully declares 'Read-only' safety status and clarifies the L1/overview mapping. However, it lacks disclosure of error behavior (e.g., invalid ID, ambiguous prefix matches) or rate limiting.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action and safety declaration ('Read-only'). Second sentence provides precise workflow trigger. Every word 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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool. Covers safety (read-only), workflow integration, and content depth levels. Minor gap in not describing error states or return format, though this is less critical given the straightforward 'retrieve content' purpose and lack of output schema.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema by mapping 'L1' to 'overview' and implying usage patterns (complete text vs. overview), enriching the agent's understanding of when to select each enum value.

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 ('Retrieve'), resource ('single memory entry'), and scope ('full or overview-level content'). Distinguishes from siblings like search_memory by emphasizing 'single' entry versus search results, and contrasts 'full' content with 'compact summaries' from search.

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 search returned compact summaries and you need the complete text or L1 overview'), establishing a clear workflow. However, it implies rather than explicitly names the sibling search tool (e.g., search_memory) as the prerequisite step.

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