RecallNest

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It successfully declares the operation as 'Read-only' (safety profile) and crucially warns that it 'may fire stored reminders as a side effect,' which is essential context for agent planning not found in the schema.

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 consists of three tightly constructed sentences: one defining the core function, one disclosing safety/side effects, and one providing usage guidance. No words are wasted and critical information is front-loaded.

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 the high schema coverage (100%) and lack of output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It covers the search mechanism, filtering capabilities, side effects, and usage patterns. It could be improved by hinting at the result structure or contrasting with retrieval siblings, but it suffices for the complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'temporal filtering' (mapping to after/before parameters) and 'semantic similarity' (contextualizing query), but does not clarify ambiguous schema entries like 'scope' or 'profile' (both lacking descriptive enums in the description text).

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 searches 'indexed memories by semantic similarity' and returns 'ranked results with optional temporal filtering.' It uses specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like `memory_drill_down` or `retrieve_skill`.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'proactively at the start of tasks, when debugging, writing, or when the user references past work.' This gives clear context for invocation, though it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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