memory_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool browses memories, returns newest first, and supports filtering. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but that is implied by 'browse'.

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?

Two concise sentences with no superfluous text. The purpose and guidance are front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description provides core usage and differentiation. Missing details on pagination or ordering beyond 'newest first' are minor given schema richness.

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?

The description mentions 'filter by tags and time window', which adds some context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' or 'memory_type' parameters beyond 'of one type'. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate more.

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 the verb 'browse' with the resource 'memories of one type' and specifies ordering ('newest first'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'memory_search' by stating this tool is for browsing and not for per-turn 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use for 'what did I do recently' or 'what happened in this session', and a direct exclusion: 'Not for per-turn recall — use memory_search for that.'

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