memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the side effect that returned items record retention access by default and how to disable it (trackAccess=false), plus token_budget truncation and result formats. It omits auth/permission requirements and pagination behavior.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then return behavior, then parameter caveats, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries information, though the six-sentence run is slightly crowded.

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, so the description correctly covers return values (ranked results, full/compact/narrative, token_budget truncation) and the retention side effect. It is nearly complete, lacking only auth/rate-limit context for a read tool with a mutation-adjacent side effect.

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 meaning beyond the schema for '*' semantics (agentId/project), sourceKind filtering behavior, and trackAccess. It meaningfully augments rather than repeats the field descriptions.

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 (project-scoped observations and durable memories), and explicitly routes a different use case to the sibling memory_smart_search. An agent can distinguish this from related recall/search tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context ('before continuing work or checking earlier decisions') and names an alternative with its selecting condition ('Use memory_smart_search for compact search followed by ID expansion'). No explicit when-not guidance, but the '*' cross-project warning adds a negative-use caveat.

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