recall_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by revealing the hybrid search method (semantic + keyword), which is not obvious from the name alone. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as result ordering, handling of the limit parameter, or any side effects. For a read-only search tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core function and search method. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple search tool with two well-described parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how it works. It does not describe the return format or ordering, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap. The description is sufficient for basic use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'limit'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema already documents each parameter effectively. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Recall relevant memories using hybrid search (semantic similarity + keyword search).' The verb 'recall' and resource 'memories' are specific, and the hybrid search method is explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (store_memory and store_memories_batch) which are clearly for writing, not reading.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is for retrieving relevant memories. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools are all storage operations, making the recall tool's purpose obvious. No conflicts or competing search tools are present, so the implied usage is sufficient.

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