memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves from both private and shared stores and that search can be semantic, keyword-based, or graph-based. However, it does not mention return format, whether any filtering or ranking applies, or any access caveats.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The primary action and retrieval scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters, a nested scope object, no output schema, no annotations, and several related sibling tools, this description is too sparse. It leaves important invocation details such as mode defaults, query semantics, shared-memory handling, and result expectations unexplained.

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 40%, and the description compensates poorly. It loosely maps to the mode enum with 'semantic meaning, keywords, or graph' and mentions shared/private stores, but it does not clarify the required query parameter, the meaning of hybrid mode, top_k behavior, or the nested scope object.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search memory' and lists search methods (semantic, keyword, graph). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like memory_timeline or memory_history.

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 implies the tool is for searching/recalling stored memories, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer memory_recall over alternatives like memory_assemble_context, memory_timeline, or memory_remind_me. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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