recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by mentioning 'by keyword and meaning', indicating semantic search behavior and scoping to the agent's own notes. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but 'recall' implies retrieval. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 a single, action-first sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function without redundancy, making it highly 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?

Given the output schema exists and the input parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance versus the sibling 'search' tool, which is a minor gap for a tool with only one sibling in the search domain.

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% with both parameters clearly described. The query description already includes 'matched by both keyword and semantic meaning', so the tool description adds no new parameter-level insight. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 this agent's own remembered notes using keyword and semantic matching. It specifically distinguishes itself from the sibling 'remember' (which likely stores) and 'search' (which is broader) by scoping to 'this agent's own remembered notes'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search'. It implies usage context through 'this agent's own remembered notes', but no direct exclusion or alternative comparison is given. This is an implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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