recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the semantic matching behavior and the intended use case, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three short sentences with no fluff. The first two sentences deliver the core purpose, and the third gives a practical usage tip. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It gives a clear use case but omits any indication of what the search results look like and does not address edge cases. For a simple three-parameter search, this is borderline adequate.

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?

All three parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little value by clarifying that 'query' is natural language ('by MEANING, not keywords'), but it does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'context' beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Search memories semantically' and 'Finds memories by MEANING, not keywords', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' by emphasizing semantic retrieval, and adds a concrete usage context.

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 explicitly says 'Use at the start of sessions to restore context', providing a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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