Recall memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Search' and 'recall', and it discloses the no-args listing behavior. It does not go into response size or edge cases, but for a search tool this is sufficient basic behavioral transparency.

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 three short sentences that front-load the primary action ('Search stored memories') and immediately follow with usage modes and a specific directive. There is no filler or redundant wording, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with only 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior, invocation patterns, and a practical context (start of a new project). It lacks details about potential return values, but no output schema exists, so the description is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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?

Only 'query' has a schema description ('Substring to search in keys and values'). The description merely lists 'query text, scope, and projectId' without explaining the meaning of scope or how it relates to projectId. Since schema coverage is only 33%, the description should have compensated but did not, leaving the agent to guess at the semantics of two parameters.

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 'Search stored memories' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling 'remember' tool by indicating a retrieval operation. It also details two invocation modes (list recent memories with no arguments, or filter by query, scope, and projectId), which fully clarifies the tool's role.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('Call with no arguments to list recent memories, or filter...') and gives a strong situational directive ('Always recall global memories at the start of a new project'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the full top score.

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