recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries a higher disclosure burden. It conveys that recall is a non-mutating semantic search across all memories, which is useful. However, it does not describe the result format, ordering, or the approximate nature of semantic matching.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and the suggested usage context are both front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 main call path is clear for a search tool, but the lack of an output schema and any behavioral annotations means the agent must infer return shape and filtering semantics. It is adequate but not fully complete for confident invocation.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify how query, tags, project, limit, or min_importance interact, and schema coverage is only 60%, leaving limit and min_importance without descriptive text. The description needed to compensate for this gap but did not.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search across all stored memories.' This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like remember or forget, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 gives an actionable use case: 'Use this at the start of a session to recover context from prior sessions.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_memories or get_stats.

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