recall_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the effect of decay on relevance, and the 'Hebbian boost' that refreshes memory strength upon successful recall. This is a meaningful side effect beyond a simple read. However, it does not describe the output format or any failure modes.

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: the first front-loads the primary purpose, the second adds a key behavioral detail. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It covers the mechanism and side effects, but stops short of explaining when to use recall_memory versus verify_history. Still, it provides enough context for correct tool selection.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, and the description does not elaborate on what the query should contain or its format. While the description mentions 'semantic relevance', it leaves the query semantics largely implicit, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 retrieves memories based on semantic relevance and decay, using a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('memories'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like store_memory (which writes) and verify_history (which checks history) by focusing on retrieval.

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 implies that this tool is for recalling memories when you need to retrieve them, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context of sibling tools helps, but no direct guidance is given.

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