memory_recall_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the deep_rerank parameter's behavior, including performance implications and a known hang incident on Apple Silicon. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, side effects, or the structure of the output briefing.

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 is front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. However, the lengthy and highly specific deep_rerank details (incident report, env var workaround) make the description overly verbose for a general tool definition. Some content could be shortened or moved to the parameter description.

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 9 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description should provide a high-level overview of the tool's behavior and parameters. It fails to explain most parameters and does not describe the output briefing structure, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only documents one parameter (deep_rerank) in detail, leaving the other 8 parameters (limit, query, action, days_recent, include_pinned, etc.) completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Assemble a structured memory recall briefing for agent cold-start or session continuity.' The verb 'assemble' and specific resource 'structured memory recall briefing' provide clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'memory_recall', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

The description mentions usage context ('agent cold-start or session continuity') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_recall' or other siblings. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of prerequisites.

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