recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the return shape (grounded claims with byte ranges) and, critically, the abstention behavior — telling the agent to treat an ungrounded-term disclosure as a real answer, not empty results. This prevents a serious misinterpretation. It stops short of covering error conditions or permission needs, but the abstention quirk is the highest-value disclosure for this tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose first, then return format, then behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. Slightly dense but tightly constructed — no waste.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (search, grounded return format, abstention semantics). However, it is vague on what 'the substrate' is, and beyond the byte-range note it gives no sense of result volume, ordering, or pagination — minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 compensate for the undocumented query parameter — and it does not. Nothing clarifies query format, length, phrasing guidance, or how a good query is constructed. The single parameter's meaning is somewhat self-evident from 'Search memory,' but the description adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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-resource pair ('Search memory') that cleanly separates it from every sibling (remember, add_source, verify_receipts, forget, export_memory, memory_stats — none of which search). The byte-range grounding detail further differentiates it as a retrieval-with-evidence tool.

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 verb 'search' implies the tool is for retrieval, which is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like remember and forget. But the description never explicitly says when to use it over alternatives or states any exclusions — usage guidance is only implied, not stated.

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