recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses meaningful runtime behavior: reranking is enabled by default with disable paths, current-project memories are boosted and non-lossy, and `scope="project"` hard-limits results. It does not describe output shape or error behavior, but the disclosed details go beyond a generic retrieve statement.

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 compact and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by only high-value behavioral details. Nothing is wasted; every sentence earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context to select, invoke, and scope the tool correctly: full text returned, k, rerank default, project fallback, and strict project scoping. Minor gaps remain in the available `scope` values and relationship to `search`.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters; it explains `project`, `scope`, and `rerank` meaningfully, and `query`/`k` are covered by the 'search' and 'top-k' phrasing. It does not enumerate possible `scope` values beyond the `"project"` example, but the added semantic value is substantial.

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 a specific verb-plus-resource statement: it searches then hydrates the top-k notes' full text. This clearly indicates a retrieval/recall operation on memory notes, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling `search` tool.

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 detailed scoping guidance for `project` and `scope`, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like `search`, `recent`, or `build_context`. The usage context must be inferred from the niche described.

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