recall

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It adds 'Corrections surface first' but omits details on mutability, authentication needs, or rate limits. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 concise with a one-sentence purpose and bulleted args. It is front-loaded, but the args section could be more integrated.

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 zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: no return value description (despite output schema), no pagination, no explanation of 'corrections'. Incomplete for a search tool with three parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It provides trivial descriptions ('What to search for', 'Max results', 'Filter by namespace') that do little beyond parameter names. No additional context like formats or constraints.

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 'Search memories by relevance' with a specific verb and resource, and 'Corrections surface first' adds a key behavioral nuance. It distinguishes recall from siblings like check, correct, and store, which are for other memory operations.

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 usage for searching memories but does not explicitly state when to use recall versus alternatives like check or correct. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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