memory_lesson_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses exclusions (deleted/archived, below minConfidence), the return shape ({success,lessons}), the ranking criteria (relevance, confidence, recency), the limit bound, and the non-mutating nature ('without generating or reinforcing them'). This is rich behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 search scope and special value, then behavior, then return shape, then usage routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description provides the return shape and ranking semantics. Filtering, scoping, limit behavior, and non-mutation are all covered, so an agent has enough to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the special '*' value for project and the minConfidence filtering behavior. Only the limit parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema default.

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 (search) and resource (saved lessons) with scope (explicit project, '*' across projects). It clearly distinguishes itself from memory_recall, which searches observations and durable memories, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 says to use it before choosing an approach, and names the alternative tool (memory_recall) along with what that alternative covers. Nothing about when to select this versus its sibling is left to inference.

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