warden__recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the store is private and encrypted. It does not say whether matching is semantic or keyword, whether results come back decrypted in plaintext, whether there is a result cap or pagination, or what access/prerequisites are needed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundant restatement of the name. Brevity here is efficient, though it verges on under-specification.

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?

A search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter needs the description to say what comes back and under what conditions. It says nothing about result format, ranking, limits, or failure modes, leaving key details unavailable anywhere in the definition.

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 0%, so the schema documents nothing about the single 'query' parameter; the description only implies it is a relevance query for notes. There is no guidance on natural-language vs keyword phrasing, length, or how the string is matched, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: searches 'private encrypted memory' and returns 'relevant notes'. That distinguishes it reasonably well from sibling warden__remember (the write counterpart) and warden__list, though the boundary against warden__knowledge / warden__knowledge_read is not drawn.

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 word 'relevant' implies this is a relevance-ranked lookup rather than an exhaustive dump, which hints at when to prefer it over a listing tool, but no alternative is named and no condition for use or non-use is stated explicitly.

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