recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adequately describes the tool's behavior: it returns matched projects, episodes, diffs, thinking blocks, file states, and a narrative in one call. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or auth needs, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with key info, and every sentence adds value. It is 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description lists the types of data returned (projects, episodes, diffs, etc.) in sufficient detail. It could elaborate on fuzzy time handling but is otherwise complete for a tool with this complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score is 3.

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's purpose: handling 'do you remember...' questions with fuzzy time references, project matching, and episode retrieval. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search and find_episodes by positioning itself as the first tool to use for such queries.

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 explicit guidance: 'START HERE for any do you remember... question' and 'DO NOT manually search and paginate — use this tool first.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use it versus alternatives.

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