recall

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that higher profiles 'do more reflection and return more provenance' and are 'gated by the workspace plan,' which is valuable context. It also mentions cost implications. However, it does not explicitly state whether recall is read-only or describe other side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a no-annotation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the core action, and the second explains the profile parameter's nuances and its relationship to the status tool. There is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, one required), the description covers only the retrieval purpose and profile specifics. The output schema exists and can explain return values, but the description does not clarify other parameters or edge cases. It is adequate for a basic retrieval tool but feels incomplete for an agent needing to use memory_types, query_timestamp, or explain effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains the 'profile' parameter in detail, covering just one of six parameters. The description does not address query, limit, explain, memory_types, or query_timestamp, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for these parameters despite their self-explanatory names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve memories from hosted Bilinc Cloud.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like commit_mem, revise, and forget by focusing on retrieval. The additional note that 'Smart retrieval is this argument, not a separate tool' further disambiguates from potential alternatives.

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 provides practical guidance: 'call `status` to see which profiles this key may use' indicates a prerequisite for using higher profiles. It also clarifies that profile-based retrieval is not a separate tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use recall vs. other memory operations or list exclusions, so it misses some explicit alternative guidance.

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