recall_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this meaningfully by stating that scoring is 'deterministic', local, and applies across specific memory fields, and that only active memories are searched. It leaves ranking and pagination details implicit, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentence with the primary action front-loaded. Every phrase adds either scope, mechanism, or matching criteria, with no filler or repetition.

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 search tool, the description covers the target, the active-only constraint, and the matching dimensions, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be restated. The only notable gaps are the lack of explicit alternative guidance and the undeveloped limit parameter, but neither prevents correct invocation.

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 add parameter meaning. It clarifies that query can match against topic, content, tags, context, and type, which genuinely helps the agent understand the query parameter. However, limit is left entirely to its name and default value, with no stated semantics or cap behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') on a specific resource ('active repository memories') and details the matching dimensions: topic, content, tags, context, and type. It clearly differentiates this tool from list_memories by indicating scored retrieval rather than plain enumeration.

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 conveys that this tool is for finding relevant memories rather than merely listing them, so the intended use is implied. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_memories or any alternative, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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