agent_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the access model (private + permissioned team + granted) and that results carry source snippets. It says nothing about permission failure behavior, rate limits, or how token_budget constrains output, which matters for a retrieval tool with a budget parameter.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its length on scope enumeration rather than on the parameters that need explanation.

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 five-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is thin. It partially covers the return shape ('带来源段落的上下文') but leaves the budget and count parameters, and any auth requirements, unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters, and it largely fails: only the scope concepts loosely map to agent_id and teams. top_k and token_budget — the two parameters that control result size and cost — are never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb (检索/retrieve) and resource (记忆/memory), and enumerates the three scopes searched: private, permissioned team shared, and granted others'. This distinguishes it from generic memory_search by scope, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 is used when acting as a specific agent_id, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never contrasts it with memory_search or the other memory siblings. The choice between agent_recall and memory_search is left entirely to inference.

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