recall_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It covers ordering behavior (relevant vs newest) which is a useful trait, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, whether notes are scoped to a project or user, or what happens with an empty result set. For a read tool with zero structured behavior hints, this is thin.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. Ordering rules are front-loaded and the safe-argless note follows. Efficient for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 description is short and the tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description should fill more gaps (permissions, scoping, return contents, limit default). It leaves the agent guessing about how the tool behaves beyond ordering.

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 50%, with `query` described in the schema but `limit` undocumented. The description explains the semantic effect of omitting query (get latest notes), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the limit parameter's behavior or defaults.

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 the resource (saved project notes) and the ordering behavior, distinguishing it from save_note. The verb 'recall' is clear, though the description spends a word on ordering rather than explicitly stating 'retrieve'. Still clear enough that an agent knows what it does.

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 phrase 'Safe to call argless at task start' gives a clear implied usage context for calling without parameters. However, it doesn't explain when the query variant should be used vs alternatives like semantic_search, save_note, or other sibling tools. The guidance is present but narrow.

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