RecallNest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It establishes durability ('durable memory') and temporal scope ('across future windows'), but omits behavioral details like update/merge semantics (relevant given the canonicalKey parameter), idempotency, or failure modes.

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, followed immediately by usage context and specific examples. 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?

Given 11 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the conceptual model (case as problem-solution) and persistence guarantees. Could be improved by noting the merge/update capability implied by canonicalKey, but sufficient for tool selection.

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 adds conceptual context mapping 'problem-and-solution pair' to the problem/solutionSteps parameters, but does not elaborate on specific parameter formats, the importance score scale, or scope syntax 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Store') and resource ('reusable case'/'durable memory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like store_memory or store_skill by specifying this is for 'problem-and-solution pairs' with concrete examples (debugging fix, migration lesson).

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 positive guidance on when to use ('when you identify a concrete problem-and-solution pair worth reusing across future windows') with specific scenarios. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative tools from the sibling list.

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