memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior beyond the schema: results are ranked best-first and include one rare exploratory route, and the output should be treated as suggestions. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or return format details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the timing and core behavior, with no wasted words. The exploration constraint and usage caution are included compactly.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains the high-level purpose and one parameter concept but leaves key parameters ('k', 'site') and invocation details undocumented, making correct use difficult without guessing.

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%, so the description must define all four parameters. It implies the meaning of 'goal' and 'explore' and hints at ranked top results via 'best first', but it does not clarify 'k' (number of results) or 'site' at all.

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 states a specific capability: recalling past routes for a similar goal, ordered best-first, with one exploratory route included. It is clear enough to distinguish from memory_record, but uses the vague term 'routes' and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 'Before a task' gives explicit timing, and 'Use them as starting points, not as instructions' gives practical usage guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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