recall

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable context about content scope (notes, analysis, compiled research, and wider articles/social posts with wide=true). It doesn't detail return format, but an output schema exists, so that is covered elsewhere.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver purpose, usage context, and parameter guidance without any fluff. The description is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the primary use case and content scope. However, it omits the 'k' parameter and does not mention alternative siblings other than 'search', leaving some ambiguity for distinguishing from tools like 'remember' or 'why'. Overall adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only explains 'wide' (broaden to articles/social posts), but does not describe 'query' or 'k'. The meaning of 'query' is implicit, but 'k' (result count) is left unexplained, which is a significant gap.

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 Zeug's internal writings (notes, analysis, compiled research) and explicitly contrasts this with search for 'why did we decide X' questions, effectively distinguishing it from a key sibling. The verb 'Recall' and resource are specific.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this (not search) for "why did we decide X" questions.' Also includes a parameter-based guidance ('Set wide=true to also include articles and social posts'). This is clear and actionable for an agent.

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