recall_memory_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool recalls information but doesn't describe what happens when no matches are found, whether the recall is fuzzy or exact, what format the returned information takes, or any limitations like memory size or access permissions. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose. The first sentence states the tool's function, and the second explains the parameter. There's no wasted text or redundancy. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), a single parameter with good semantic explanation in the description, and no complex annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context about the memory system's scope, how recall interacts with the sibling memorize tool, and behavioral details that would help the agent use it effectively.

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?

The description provides meaningful semantic context for the single parameter 'interest' that goes beyond the schema. While schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains that 'interest' can be '一句陈述、一个问题甚至是关键词' (a statement, a question, or even keywords), which clarifies the flexible nature of this input. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool '从项目记忆中回忆相关信息' (recalls related information from project memory), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about what constitutes 'project memory' and doesn't clearly differentiate from its sibling 'memorize_memory_tool' beyond the recall vs. memorize distinction. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the scope and nature of the memory system.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the sibling 'memorize_memory_tool' or explain the relationship between recalling and memorizing. There's no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or limitations. The agent receives no help in deciding when this tool is the right choice.

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