recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: identity and passphrase come from MCP client configuration rather than arguments, decryption happens without exposing the secret, an empty list means nothing relevant is remembered, and `truncated: true` means the scan is incomplete. These details materially affect how an agent should call and interpret the tool.

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 front-loaded with the primary instruction to call at session start, then layers on re-use conditions, authentication context, and empty/truncated result semantics. Despite covering several behaviors, each sentence contributes useful operational guidance.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return structure in detail, yet it still explains the meaningful empty-list and truncation cases. Combined with authentication context and usage timing, it gives the agent everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 already 100%, so both `query` and `folder` are documented structurally. The description reinforces the folder scoping and default-space behavior, but it largely repeats what the schema already states rather than adding new parameter-level syntax or constraints.

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 verb and resource: recall relevant information from the user's portable memory. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling `remember` by explaining that recall should happen before remembering a digest so notes supersede rather than duplicate.

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?

It gives explicit timing and scope: call at the start of every session, scoped to the project's folder, and again whenever prior user context is needed. It also names a concrete alternative workflow, calling it before remembering a digest to avoid duplication.

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