memory_recall

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

The description discloses no annotation details since none are provided, so it carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'Fetch' and hints at potential cost with 'Only recall what you actually need,' but it does not explain what happens with invalid IDs, return structure, or any failure modes. This is minimal but adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

Three short sentences each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, giving usage context, and providing a best-practice caution. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a cost-conscious guideline. It does not explain the return format or error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool and the clear linkage to memory_search make this sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with a description for 'ids.' The tool description adds contextual usage ('Use after memory_search') but does not deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not clarify array size limits, duplicate handling, or ID format specifics. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Fetch full content for specific memory IDs,' which clearly states the tool's action (fetch) and target (memory IDs). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing memory_search as a prior step, making it clear that this tool retrieves details for already-found IDs rather than searching.

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 explicitly says 'Use after memory_search to retrieve complete entries for the most relevant results,' providing a direct when-to-use statement. The instruction 'Only recall what you actually need' adds a concrete exclusionary guideline about avoiding unnecessary fetches. This is clear and actionable.

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