recall_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that query uses full-text search, that an empty query returns recent memories, and that category is an optional filter with an enumerated list. This is sufficient for a read-only recall tool, though it doesn't describe ordering or empty-result behavior explicitly.

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 tightly structured: one-sentence purpose, direct usage instruction, then a clean Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the most important usage directive is front-loaded.

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 memory-retrieval tool with an existing output schema, this is complete. It tells the agent when to invoke, how to form the query, what filters are available, and the limit behavior. No critical operational aspect is missing.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter: query search semantics and empty-query behavior, category filter with all allowed values, and limit with its default of 20. This far exceeds the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with 'Search and recall past memories,' which names a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling write tools like save_memory and forget_memory, so an agent can identify this as the retrieval tool without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit call-time guidance: 'Call this at the START of every session' and 'whenever you need to remember something from the past.' It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the read-versus-write distinction across siblings is implicit, so the context is clear even without formal exclusions.

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