RecallNest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect ('stores a reminder entry') and trigger mechanism ('auto-triggers during future search_memory calls'), but lacks details on what happens when triggered (return behavior, consumption vs. recurring, limits).

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: first defines function and mechanism, second discloses side effects, third provides usage guidance. Well front-loaded with the core prospective memory concept.

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 annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the unique integration with search_memory and the persistent nature of reminders. Minor gaps remain regarding immediate return values and detailed trigger behavior (one-time vs. recurring).

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 baseline 3. The description adds semantic context by explaining that 'trigger' keywords relate to future search_memory activation, but does not elaborate deeply on individual parameter semantics since the schema is self-documenting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('prospective memory reminder') and clearly distinguishes from sibling storage tools by explaining the unique auto-trigger mechanism with 'future search_memory calls' and 'trigger keywords match'.

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 clear usage context ('Use when you need a future nudge tied to a specific context') and implicitly differentiates from store_memory/search_memory siblings by explaining the prospective memory pattern. Would benefit from explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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