recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that matching is semantic rather than keyword-based, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens with empty results, or any side effects. The verb 'search' implies non-mutating, but more detail would be safer.

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 composed of three short, information-dense sentences. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and each sentence adds value: the semantic nature, the distinction from keyword search, and a usage recommendation. There is no clutter or repetition.

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 straightforward retrieval tool, the description covers the purpose, a key behavioral nuance, and a specific usage scenario. Since there is no output schema, it might be helpful to mention the return format or ranking, but the tool's purpose implies the results are memories. This is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning; it only implies the query should be natural language, which the schema already states. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies a search action over memories, and the phrase 'by MEANING, not keywords' distinguishes it from a simple keyword lookup. The sibling tools (remember, forget) confirm this is the retrieval counterpart, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives a concrete use case: 'Use at the start of sessions to restore context.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Still, the recommendation is actionable and clear.

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