recall_experiences

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the tool is read-only and does not call a model. It explains the behavior of include_inactive (production mirror vs. debugging) and describes the return format. This is transparent and adds value beyond the schema.

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 three sentences: purpose, use case, and parameter/return detail. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, key parameter, and return format. However, it omits details about top_k and region filtering, which are necessary for full understanding without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the text parameter (keyword) and include_inactive behavior and defaults. However, it does not describe top_k (limiting results) or region (filtering), leaving gaps for two of four parameters.

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 recalls experiences by keyword, specifies it is read-only and does not call a model, and distinguishes it from writing or model-driven tools. The resource and verb are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the tool is used to inspect what Experience Memory will recall, and describes the include_inactive parameter's effect. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_text or record_experience, leaving some guidance implicit.

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