recall_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only—the description does not contradict this and adds context about the 'reason' parameter's audit policy and required length (10–200 chars). This reveals behavioral constraints beyond annotations, such as the governance requirement for audit. No annotation contradiction detected.

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 very short (two sentences) but somewhat front-loaded. The first sentence defines the core purpose, but the second ('Alias of recall') is redundant given the sibling tool name. The description could be restructured to include usage guidance without adding length.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description's lack of detail on return values is acceptable. However, the tool has 6 parameters (2 required, 2 with enums) and is part of a larger set of memory-related siblings—without usage examples or mode guidance, the completeness is adequate but not excellent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level purpose but adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's already detailed parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on how modes differ or how to choose between them, so value added over schema is limited.

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 persisted memory by query, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, the alias relationship with 'recall' is noted but not distinguished—the description says 'Alias of recall' without explaining when to prefer one over the other, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'recall' or 'list_memories'. While the parameter descriptions hint at scope and mode options, there is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria. The alias note is present but unhelpful for decision-making.

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