recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: only active memories are returned and outdated/replaced ones are skipped. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or result ordering, but the filtering semantics are a meaningful addition.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the call trigger and the result-filtering caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. The description covers purpose, timing, and result scope for a read-only search tool, but leaves the limit parameter semantics and any guidance on query phrasing unstated.

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. 'By meaning' usefully defines the query parameter as a semantic/natural-language search rather than keyword matching, but the limit parameter is never explained and no format or defaults are given 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 and resource ('Search this project's shared memory') plus the retrieval mechanism ('by meaning'), which separates it at a glance from siblings like remember, mark_outdated, or list_conflicts. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call it at the start of every task, and whenever project-specific knowledge (setup, conventions, past decisions) might matter.' That is strong when-to-use context, though no alternatives or exclusions are named (e.g., when to prefer explain_memory or check_stale).

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