Memory Recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the 'cross-session context' rationale but does not disclose behaviors like handling of missing keys, multiple matches, or the effect of combining 'key' and 'search'. Given the rich annotations, the description meets a minimal bar without contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Recall stored values') and efficiently conveys the two entry points. It does not waste words, though the brevity forces omission of essential details. The structure is clean, but the content is too sparse to be highly effective.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining usage. It does not cover the namespace parameter, the semantics of key versus search, return behavior when no match is found, or how results are formatted. The annotations cover safety, but not operational completeness, leaving a significant gap for an agent to call this correctly.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It only hints at 'key or search term', leaving 'namespace' entirely unexplained. It does not clarify parameter types, defaults, interactions (e.g., what happens if both key and search are provided), or expected format. This is insufficient for a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema.

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?

Description states the verb 'Recall' and resource 'stored values', and specifies two access mechanisms ('by key or search term'). This clearly identifies the function without being a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'memory_scan' — the name and mention of 'stored values' suffice to infer the memory scope.

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 phrase 'Used for cross-session context' gives a use case but does not explain when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., 'search', 'memory_scan', or 'rag_retrieve'). It implies the tool addresses persistent memory recall, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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