recall_persistent_memory

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

The description indicates it queries a persistent vector database, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose limitations, privacy implications, or behavior when no results are found. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it provides basic context but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, achieving high conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. It does not explain edge cases or result handling, but these are partially addressed by the output schema. The description is nearly complete for a recall tool.

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%, requiring the description to compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description does not mention the 'query' or 'n_results' parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is insufficient when coverage is low.

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 identifies the tool as querying a persistent vector database to retrieve past context, preferences, or project details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like store_persistent_memory and tavily_web_search by specifying its recall function.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to check if you have existing knowledge on a topic the user mentions.' This provides clear guidance on invocation context, differentiating it from storage or search tools.

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