Recall Memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: recall is exact-match only, not semantic; filters use field equality; keyspace defaults to the configured one; and filter results default to a limit of 25. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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-organized and front-loaded with the core distinction, followed by usage details and an explicit alternative. The Args block is slightly repetitive with the opening sentence but remains compact and scannable.

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?

With six optional parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description carries heavy responsibility. It covers most operational behavior, but the undocumented `scope` parameter is a real gap, and the description does not state what the tool returns (single record vs. list) beyond implying it. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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. It does document `key`, `custom_key`, `filters`, `limit`, and `keyspace` with meaningful explanations and examples. However, it omits the `scope` parameter entirely, leaving the agent with only the unhelpful title 'Scope' from the schema.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'Recall memory by exact key or by field filter (not by meaning).' It names the resource (memories), the operation (recall), and the two lookup modes. It also explicitly names the semantic-search sibling, which distinguishes it clearly.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use `key`/`custom_key` for a single record, use `filters` for field-equality lookups, and 'For meaning-based recall use montycat_semantic_search instead.' This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement with an alternative.

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