recall_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. 'Re-read' makes the read-only nature clear, and 'most recent memories' conveys the ordering expectation. It does not mention error behavior or access restrictions, but for a simple read operation with an output schema, the key behavioral point is covered.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides usage context and the key alternative efficiently.

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?

For a simple read tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and the main alternative. It is only slightly incomplete in not contrasting with list_memories as a possible overlapping sibling for browsing memories.

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 parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining where memory_id comes from (previous store_memory or search_memory) and tying the limit parameter to the 'catch up on recent memories' use case.

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 ('re-read') and resource ('memory'), and clearly distinguishes the two access modes: by id or by recent memories. It also differentiates from search_memory by explicitly reserving meaning-based lookup for that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance: use it when you already know the memory id from a previous store_memory or search_memory call, or to catch up on recent entries. It also states when not to use it by directing meaning-based lookups to search_memory.

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