Search Memories (Recall)

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

Description reveals ranking algorithm (name > description > body), that non-matches are dropped, and returns best results first. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and description adds useful context without contradiction.

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 clear structure: one-sentence purpose, paragraph on behavior, bulleted arg list, and return note. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, description mentions 'returns ranked matches with their relevance scores' and 'Empty if nothing matches.' It could specify the structure of the ranking, but it is sufficiently complete for a retrieval tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the ranking rule for the query parameter and clarifying defaults like limit=20. The type parameter is augmented with the phrase 'optional filter to a single memory type', which matches 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?

Description clearly states it is a retrieval tool for memories by free-text query, ranked by relevance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall_delete and recall_write by calling itself the 'primary retrieval tool'.

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?

Description explains that it is the primary retrieval tool and describes the ranking behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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