memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the trust hierarchy (verified vs. provisional/unverified treated as hints only) and instructs that 'preferences' be followed. It does not state permission/auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read tool the output-semantics disclosure is substantive.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and timing, then return semantics and caveats. Dense with useful information and no filler, though the 'preferences' instruction could be folded more tightly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what comes back (verified skills, facts, lessons, preferences) and how to treat unverified items. The gap is the unexplained 'k' parameter and any limits on result volume.

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?

Only 'query' has schema documentation (coverage 50%); 'k' is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description never mentions result count or how to control it. The phrase 'what you are about to work on' loosely aligns with query but adds little beyond the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the project's persistent memory') and clarifies the return contents (verified skills, facts, lessons). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the write-oriented siblings (memory_propose, memory_correct, memory_report_outcome), though the read/search nature is inherently distinct.

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?

'Search the project's persistent memory before starting work' gives a clear triggering context. No when-not conditions or named alternatives are given, so it falls short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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