memory_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a non-obvious two-stage behavior: primary CP Memory lookup followed by an auxiliary Codex memory lookup contingent on hit quality. It does not, however, clarify whether the operation is read-only, what 'hit quality' means, or how failures are handled.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It earns its place by conveying the primary lookup order and the fallback condition, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful detail.

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?

While an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the tool has four parameters with no schema descriptions and sits among more than forty related tools. The description does not explain parameter usage, hit-quality thresholds, or how this recall entry relates to specific sibling tools like memory_search, making it incomplete for reliable agent 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It only loosely implies allow_auxiliary via 'auxiliary background', and provides essentially no explanation of query, intent, or limit semantics. This leaves the agent dependent on parameter names and defaults alone.

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 identifies a concrete operation: a memory-first recall entry that consults the CP Memory main database. It is clear about the resource and action, but the phrase 'any memory-related issue' is broad and does not differentiate this tool from memory_search, memory_probe, or memory_inspect among the siblings.

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 gives a clear usage directive: for memory-related issues, check CP Memory first, then optionally consult auxiliary memory based on hit quality. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention any sibling alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between memory_recall and the many other memory_* tools.

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