chainmemory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates recall (a read operation) and returns plaintext, implying it's non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or safe, which would be ideal but is reasonably inferred.

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, front-loaded with purpose and behavior, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, usage context, and output format (plaintext). Minor gaps include no explicit read-only statement, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the count parameter with description, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying ordering (most recent first) and default behavior (default 10), complementing the schema. It does not add syntax details but enhances understanding.

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 recalls recent memories, specifies ordering (most recent first), and identifies the output format (plaintext). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_memories_filtered (which likely has filters) and chainmemory_remember (for remembering new memories).

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 explicitly advises using the tool at conversation start to provide context continuity, which is a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guideline is strong enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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