recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context by explaining that matching is by vector similarity rather than literal terms, which tells the agent results may be fuzzy. It says nothing about read-only safety, side effects, result limits, or ranking behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the distinguishing mechanism. Nothing is wasted, though the mechanism sentence arguably restates the first clause's intent.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core mechanic but omits any mention of filtering, scoping, or result-sizing behavior, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps around the many optional filters.

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 86%, so the schema already documents tags, brief, top_k, source, and tags_mode in detail. The description adds only that query is a semantic (optional) search, which is largely redundant with the schema note. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation (semantic search) on a specific resource (memories), and adds the mechanism (vector similarity) that explains what makes it different from a keyword lookup. It does not, however, distinguish this from any sibling tool such as remember/forget, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the siblings. The implied usage — retrieve memories by meaning rather than exact wording — is inferable but never stated as a selection criterion.

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