memory_recall

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral context — returns window-center coordinates usable directly by desktop_click, and will resolve down to individual controls for element references. It does not disclose what happens on a miss, how ambiguity is resolved, or whether the memory persists across sessions.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then supported by concrete examples and the downstream consumer (desktop_click). Every line carries information; no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should fully pin down the return shape. It says 'window center coordinates' but is ambiguous about what element-level hits return (element coordinates? a handle?) and gives no failure-mode behavior, leaving a gap for a tool whose whole job is producing a value the agent then feeds to desktop_click.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'query'. The description's examples largely duplicate the schema's example string, adding only the element-level variant ('that button just now'). Baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource: resolve a natural-language reference phrase into clickable window/element coordinates, with two named resolution modes (window-level and element-level). This is enough to separate it from memory_clear/memory_timeline/memory_stats, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 examples ('just now that window', 'that button just now') imply the usage context: when the agent has a vague pronoun-style reference rather than a precise handle. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer desktop_list_windows, desktop_elements, or desktop_focus_window instead, and no stated preconditions.

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