recall

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not the primary carrier of behavior here. It adds some value by disclosing the retrieval mechanism (keyword matching) and cross-layer scope, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core verb and scope are front-loaded. Nothing in it is wasted.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and safety fully covered by annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It falls short on the one thing that actually matters in this crowded sibling set: telling the agent when to pick recall over query_layer, semantic_recall, or corpus_recall.

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 all three parameters (query, layer enum, limit) are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema – 'by keyword' hints at matching semantics and 'across layers' corresponds to the layer filter, but no format or syntax detail is added.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('search and retrieve memories') plus the mechanism ('by keyword', 'across layers'), so the basic purpose is legible. However, the sibling set contains several closely overlapping retrieval tools (corpus_recall, query_layer, semantic_recall), and the description offers no differentiation between them, leaving an agent unable to tell which retriever applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite obvious candidates such as query_layer and semantic_recall. The only implicit signal is that the tool is keyword-based, which the agent must infer as a routing criterion on its own.

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