recall

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

The description discloses the hybrid retrieval method, which adds behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. For a presumably read-only recall, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any waste. It earns a top score for conciseness.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. It omits critical details like the meaning of 'k' (likely number of results), namespace behavior, and expected output format, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 33% (only namespace is described), and the tool description does not explain 'k' or 'namespace' semantics. It mentions 'query' but leaves key parameters ambiguous, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a retrieval operation for memories, using a hybrid approach (keyword + semantic vector). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'find' in method, though it does not explicitly name 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as find, context, or forget. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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