recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: searching, hydrating full text, reranking by default, ability to disable rerank, project targeting, and scope limiting. No destructive or auth concerns are mentioned, but for a search tool this is acceptable. The description adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, rerank behavior, project/scope usage. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured, but overall concise and clear.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main behaviors but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling. It says 'hydrate the top-k notes' full text' implying return of note objects, but more completeness would be beneficial. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compensate. It explains 'rerank' (disable via env var or param), 'project' (targets another project, else current), and 'scope' (hard-limit with 'project'). However, 'query' and 'k' are not elaborated beyond their schema defaults and names. The description partially adds meaning but not fully for all 5 parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search then hydrate the top-k notes' full text.' This is a specific verb+resource combo. It distinguishes from siblings: 'search' probably just searches without hydration, 'recent' is for recent notes, 'remember' likely creates memories, and 'build_context' builds context. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Description provides guidance on project targeting and scope: 'Recall prefers your current project's memories... pass `project` to target another project, else the server's working directory is used. `scope="project"` hard-limits results to that project.' It explains when to use these parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like 'search' or 'recent'.

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