memory_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. What the description does add is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the ranking is hybrid keyword/vector/graph, results are ordered best-first, and matched results carry the signals that surfaced them, plus the non-obvious default that 'kinds' excludes trace.

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?

Five tight sentences, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the per-parameter notes. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the description's note about best-first ordering is sufficient. But for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, leaving k, scope, and include_provisional entirely undefined is a real completeness gap.

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 carries the full parameter burden, and it only partially does: it explains what to put in `query` (task/question phrasing, including file/tool/project names) and the default behavior of `kinds`. The three remaining parameters (k, scope, include_provisional) get no explanation anywhere.

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 memory') plus the retrieval mechanism ('hybrid keyword + vector + graph ranking'), which separates it from get/list/brief siblings at a glance. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the query guidance ('a short description of the task or question'), which tells the agent what kind of input fits. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and nothing routes the agent between recall and memory_get, memory_list, or memory_brief.

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