memory_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default search behavior and scope options, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe result characteristics, potential limits, or side effects, leaving key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with a clear purpose, and every element is informative. The scope options are listed compactly without prose repetition, making it an appropriately sized and structured description.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the agent can expect as output and provide guidance on invocation. It fails to describe the return format, how results are scored/ordered, or what a 'custom bucket' means, and it leaves the limit parameter undocumented. This leaves significant gaps for reliable use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the scope parameter values (all, project, global, custom bucket) and the default behavior. The query parameter is implied by the purpose, but the limit parameter is left unexplained, so the coverage is only partial.

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 clearly states the tool recalls memories by meaning using RAG, which is a specific verb-resource-action combination. It also specifies the default search scope (global + project), which distinguishes it from other memory tools like memory_store, memory_forget, or memory_walk.

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 usage when semantic recall of memories is needed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_walk or recall_handoff. It provides detailed scope options (all/project/global/custom bucket) but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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