recall_context

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions 'deterministic' and the factors used, but does not disclose that calling this tool may update access metadata via the 'mark_accessed' parameter (a side effect). This lack of mutation warning is a gap for a tool that can alter state.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key features. Every word appears necessary, and it avoids redundancy.

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 the complexity (7 parameters and many options), the description covers the main aspects but omits details like limit, token_budget, include_archived, and the mark_accessed side effect. The output schema exists, which helps, but the description could be more comprehensive for agents to make informed decisions, especially compared to similar sibling tools.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description indirectly references several parameters (e.g., 'lexical match' for query, 'metadata' for filters, 'wikilink traversal' for follow_links), but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. It could clarify the meaning of 'deterministic' for results.

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 returns a 'compact, deterministic recall bundle' using specific methods like lexical match, metadata, and wikilink traversal. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_memory (which is likely a general search) and get_memory (which returns a single memory).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_memory for general search, get_memory for single memory). It does not mention context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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