recall_with_context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description aligns by describing a read-only operation. Adds behavioral details like deduplication, chronological sorting, and unified list generation. Could mention that memories are not modified, but overall good.

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?

Two concise sentences covering main action, automatic features, and benefit. No redundant information, front-loaded with key functionality.

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?

No output schema, so description carries the burden of explaining return value. Mentions 'unified list' but lacks details on output format, dedup criteria, or merging algorithm. Adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant meaning for individual parameters beyond what schema provides, but the overall behavior description helps contextualize their use.

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?

Clearly states it recalls memories and merges with external context, deduplicates, sorts chronologically, and returns a unified list. Distinguishes from sibling 'recall' by explicitly contrasting with separate recall + manual merge.

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 says it replaces separate recall + manual merge, implying it should be used when external context is available and merging is needed. However, does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., no external context -> use recall).

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