recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical canonical-key matching requirement, the return format (dict with 'results'), and the empty-result behavior. It does not cover permissions, side effects, or error cases, but for a simple retrieval tool it is fairly transparent.

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 bit longer than necessary but well-structured into an overview, an IMPORTANT note, usage guidance, parameter descriptions, and return info. Every section earns its place, with no redundant fluff.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers return value shape, empty result behavior, and the crucial key canonicalization guidance. It could be more explicit about what's inside each memory item, but 'including stored value' is sufficient for a retrieve-by-key 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'key' is described as 'concise, embedding-friendly, space-separated query text used for similarity search,' and 'top_k' as 'maximum number of nearest memories to return.' It even provides a mapping example, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 'Retrieve stored memories relevant to a query key,' which is a specific verb+resource+query. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'store' and 'forget' by focusing on retrieval.

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?

It explicitly states 'This tool SHOULD be called by the LLM when it needs to fetch previously stored facts, personal details, or preferences,' giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with store/forget, so it misses the 'when-not' part.

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