recall_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: later superseding updates are excluded for true point-in-time recall. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, and the temporal exclusion is the most critical behavioral aspect.

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 sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, the final sentence comparing mem0 and Zep is somewhat promotional and not necessary for using the tool, adding unnecessary length.

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 read-oriented retrieval tool, the description adequately covers the essential temporal semantics and provides a use case. It does not describe return format or pagination, but given the straightforward nature of a memory query, this is acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 only 33% (only as_of_iso has a schema description). The description adds no meaningful detail about 'query' or 'k', and merely reinforces the purpose of as_of_iso without providing syntax or format guidance. It fails to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the tool retrieves memories valid at a specific past point in time, with a concrete compliance/audit example. It distinguishes itself via 'true point-in-time recall' and notes that later superseding updates are excluded, making it specific and differentiated from regular recall.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use for compliance and audit' with an example query, and explains that later superseding updates are excluded, which helps select this tool over others. However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools or when not to use it.

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