memwal_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior: 'returns matching memories ranked by relevance' and implies a read-only search. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The behavior described is consistent but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and return behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.

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 relatively simple search tool, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does and what it returns. However, given the lack of an output schema and parameter descriptions, the description could be more complete by explaining the 'limit' and 'namespace' parameters. Still, it covers the core functionality adequately.

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 input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only implicitly references the 'query' parameter via 'relevant to a query' but says nothing about 'limit' or 'namespace'. These parameters remain unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the user's Walrus Memory for facts relevant to a query.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Walrus Memory'), and the mention of 'returns matching memories ranked by relevance' distinguishes it from sibling tools like memwal_remember (which stores) and memwal_analyze (which analyzes).

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 implies a clear use case: when you need to retrieve relevant facts from the user's memory. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, unlike a high-scoring tool that names a sibling as an alternative. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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