recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read' and mentions key/folder; it does not describe return format, behavior for missing keys, default folder handling beyond the schema, or whether the operation is purely local with no side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then the selection criteria. It contains no filler, repetitions, or irrelevant details, while still being sufficiently informative for such a simple operation.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It covers the core operation and parameters, but lacks guidance on expected return values, error behavior, or when to use this instead of the many sibling memory tools. The absence of annotations increases the need for more behavioral context than is provided.

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 schema already documents both 'key' and 'folder' adequately. The description simply restates 'by key and folder' without adding extra semantic meaning, such as key format, folder path rules, or what constitutes a valid memory entry. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('memory entry') with a precise selection mechanism ('by key and folder'). It is unambiguous and immediately understood, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from siblings like 'search' or 'list' beyond the key-based nature of the operation.

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 the tool should be used when you already know the key and possibly the folder of a memory entry. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'search' or 'remember', nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage context to inference.

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