marm_smart_recall

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral aspects: it is a search operation (non-destructive, implied read-only), returns ranked results with similarity scores, and details parameters like exact_mode which controls retrieval algorithm. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but provides sufficient context for safe usage.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. The front-loaded purpose and organized parameter details make it efficient to parse.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essentials: purpose, all parameters with explanations, return format (status, results list with fields). There are no obvious gaps; it provides complete contextual information for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains each of the 9 parameters (query, session_name, limit, search_all, include_logs, detail with value meanings, exact_mode with options, project, platform) adding rich meaning beyond the schema's basic types.

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 it recalls memories by semantic similarity or keyword match, specifying the verb 'Recall' and the resource 'memories'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on memory retrieval, not code lookup, graph operations, or other functions.

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 explains that the tool searches stored memories for matches to a query, implying its use for retrieval tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools are quite different, so context helps, but explicit guidance is missing.

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