recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It correctly describes the read-only nature (search and return) and what is returned (matching entities with observations and relations). However, it does not disclose edge cases like empty results, behavior with partial matches, or whether the search is case-sensitive or fuzzy. A 3 is appropriate as it covers the basic safety profile but lacks depth.

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 long, front-loaded with the action and subject, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds value: first sentence states the main purpose, second sentence clarifies the result format.

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 tool has only 2 parameters (both documented with 100% schema coverage), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the resource type, and the return structure. A 4 reflects that no output schema exists but the description adequately describes what is returned.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter specifics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the default limit value or that query matches against names, types, and observations are already in the schema). No additional semantics are contributed.

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 searches the memory graph for entities matching a query and returns them with observations and relations. It specifies the verb 'search', the resource 'memory graph', and the granularity of results, distinguishing it from siblings like 'remember' (store) or 'forget' (delete).

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 implies this is the tool to use for retrieval queries against the memory graph. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other retrieval siblings like 'get_identity' or 'get_conventions', nor does it mention when not to use it or provide alternatives for more specific searches.

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