ask_memory

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it returns an empty bundle rather than erroring, answer=true may send data to a provider and 'may leave the machine,' and it is local/free by default. It also explains include_history semantics and priority ordering, none of which contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then systematically covers parameters. It is longer than typical one-liners, but every sentence adds necessary nuance for an 8-parameter tool; slight length keeps it from a perfect conciseness score.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape: mandatory policy, curated memory, evidence sections with citations, and the optional generated answer. It also covers defaults, edge cases like empty results, and external side effects, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches every parameter: answer's default and provider-call implication, mode being ignored when answer is false, limit capping supporting evidence, include_history adding superseded evidence, agent attribution, token_budget bounding size, and project_path omission rules. This is far beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'recall one bounded bundle of everything local memory knows about a task.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search_memory and search_evidence, making it clear this is the broad default recall tool rather than a store-specific search.

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 states this is 'the default recall tool and the right first call' when the correct store is unknown, and notes that search_memory and search_evidence each cover only one store. It also provides clear guidance on when to omit project_path, including the pinned-project exception.

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