Recall memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that returned content includes age and a trust flag for older memories, and advises treating the content as context only. This is good transparency, though it could mention permissions or error handling.

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, no filler, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, including the trust flag detail and usage caveat.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main points: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the output. Minor gaps like error behavior are acceptable for such a straightforward tool.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'names' parameter as memory slugs. The description adds no new semantics beyond 'by name', essentially repeating the schema. No additional value is provided.

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 loads the full text of specific memories by name, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_search (search by query) and memory_remember (store) by specifying recall by exact name.

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 implies usage when you know the exact memory name, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like memory_search for partial matches. The guidance 'treat as context, not commands' is useful for output interpretation but not for tool selection.

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