recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals the priority ordering, the limit exception for anchors, the distinction between consolidated and working memories, and the exact nature of narrative_review as content-free. It also discloses the conflict condition and frame-relative scoping, giving agents an unusually complete behavioral model.

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 long but every clause earns its place: ordering rules, return-field semantics, and the frame restriction are all behaviorally necessary. Key behavior is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the content-free nature of narrative_review is stated directly rather than left for the agent to infer.

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?

For a memory tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is highly complete: it covers all input parameters, the memory-selection priority, all notable return fields, and edge cases such as 'even above the limit' and 'always returned regardless'. No obvious gate or consequence an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all three parameters and it does. Limit is defined by the shared-limit and anchor-exception semantics, query is defined by ordering behavior, and frame is defined by what it restricts and what it never restricts.

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 and resource ('Recall memories within a shared limit') and details the retrieval/return behavior with anchors, canon, ordinary memories, and narrative fields. It distinguishes recall from a plain search by describing its composite output, but it never names a sibling alternative (e.g., search or current_narrative) to make the boundary explicit.

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?

It gives clear internal usage context for the query parameter (lexical ranking vs. consolidated/working prioritization) and for frame (only restricts ordinary memories, never anchors/canon). However, it does not say when to prefer recall over sibling tools such as search, current_narrative, or narrate, so routing among alternatives is left implicit.

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