recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the hybrid BM25 + semantic ranking approach and the return fields (content, type, extraction_method, rrf_score), but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, rate limits, result size limits, or what include_graph expansion costs.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then cleanly separates Args and Returns. The structured layout is easy to scan; the only minor waste is restating return fields that the output schema may already cover.

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?

With five parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by documenting every argument, and it goes beyond the existing output schema with a Returns summary. The remaining gap is the absence of any sibling routing or behavioral/permission context.

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 0%, so the description must document all parameters, and it largely does: query with concrete examples, memory_type with its three valid values, top_k default, workspace as a substring match, and include_graph's expansion behavior. It stops short of clarifying interaction between top_k and include_graph, but the semantic coverage is strong.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve relevant memories from agent session history') plus the retrieval mechanism (hybrid BM25 + semantic search). An agent can tell this is memory retrieval rather than chunk/graph traversal, but the description never names or contrasts the siblings chunk_search and graph_walk, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the alternatives chunk_search or graph_walk even though include_graph overlaps conceptually with graph_walk. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool's name and the query examples.

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