saihm_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load. It adds useful context with 'decrypted client-side', suggesting a secure read operation. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and optional filtering with no redundant information.

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?

This is a simple recall tool with one optional param and no output schema. The description states the core function and decryption behavior but does not describe the return format or edge cases, which would be expected without an output schema. It is minimal but adequate.

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 describes the 'query' parameter as an optional keyword filter, and the description echoes this. With 100% schema coverage, no additional parameter semantics are provided, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Recall' with the resource 'SAIHM memories' and mentions optional keyword filtering, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like remember/forget/status.

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 context clearly implies use for retrieving memories, while siblings handle other operations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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