recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the memory 'se llena sola con cada check/test' (auto-populated) and is ordered by importance, which is real behavioral context. It omits permission/scope behavior and whether results are exhaustive or truncated, though the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Front-loaded summary of purpose followed by a use instruction and a clean Args block. The enumeration of memory categories is slightly long but each item disambiguates the return content, so it 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description instead covers purpose, data sources, ordering logic, when to use, and both parameters. Given no annotations, it could say more about safety/read-only nature, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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, and it does: 'path' is defined as an absolute project path, and 'topic' as an optional filter by file, error code, or free text, with a concrete example ('cli.py'). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles, though it could mention path formats or filter precedence.

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?

States a specific resource (project memory) and enumerates exactly what it returns, ordered by importance: recurring errors, open errors, patterns, recently resolved items, saved lessons. The verb is implicit in the name 'recall' but the content is concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'overview', which may overlap in reporting project state.

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?

'Úsalo antes de cambiar código en un proyecto en el que ya trabajaste' gives clear when-to-use context. However, it offers no exclusions and does not name an alternative sibling (e.g., overview or outline) for adjacent needs, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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