recall

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by requiring a human-readable reason (10–200 chars) and stating a rate limit of 20/min, which are governance and operational constraints beyond what annotations declare. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent understand side conditions.

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, immediately states the primary action, and then packs governance and rate-limit details without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage), output schema presence, and annotations, the description is sufficient to convey what the tool does and key constraints. It lacks explicit alternative usage guidance, but the combination of schema + annotations + concise description covers most of the operational context needed. A slightly stronger mention of when to prefer this over sibling tools would make it a 5.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with detailed meanings. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions routing modes but the schema already enumerates and explains them. This aligns with the baseline score of 3, as 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 action ('Retrieve relevant persisted memory') and specifies routing modes (semantic, temporal, priority, hybrid), giving a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'recall_memory', which likely serves a very similar purpose, so it misses the full 'distinguishes from siblings' bar.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions governance (required reason) and a rate limit, but these are constraints, not usage direction. There is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' context, so the agent has limited help in choosing between 'recall' and siblings like 'search' or 'list_memories'.

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