memory_recall

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description adds two behaviors an agent could not infer: results are gated to what the user enabled, and returned note text is untrusted data whose embedded instructions must be ignored. That injection-defense warning is genuinely valuable. It still omits how results are ordered/paged or what an empty query does.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and ending with the safety warning, with no filler. The first sentence is slightly dense with parenthetical examples but still earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and permission gating plus untrusted-content handling are covered. Missing are the semantics of the 'limit' param, how site and query combine, and the behavior when neither is supplied — for a 3-param tool with zero schema documentation, that leaves real 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 coverage is 0% with three undocumented params, so the description must compensate: 'site' and 'query' are recoverable from the two described modes, but 'limit' (default 10) is never mentioned and no format examples are given. Partial compensation only.

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 names the resource (stored memory about a site: stats, working browser settings, page types, notes) and a second mode (search over saved notes), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close siblings memory_status and memory_request_access, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 two modes (site lookup vs note search) are implied by 'about a site ... or a search over saved notes', which gives some selection guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over memory_status/memory_request_access, nor what to do when access has not yet been enabled, so usage is only implied.

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