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 of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a read-like retrieval operation but does not state whether the tool only reads memory, whether it modifies or injects context, what memory sources it queries, or how '恢复' should be interpreted. The description adds too little behavioral context for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 a single short sentence with the action and target front-loaded, and it avoids verbosity. The word '智能' is somewhat vague filler, and the description is too terse to be excellent, but it is still concise and structurally clean.

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 memory-recall tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned, what kinds of memories are searched, and how project or includeCompleted affect behavior. None of that is present, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior from the description alone.

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 adds minimal mapping by aligning '当前上下文' with the query parameter, but it does not enrich understanding of limit, project, or includeCompleted. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully supplements 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 states a specific action, '恢复相关记忆' (retrieve relevant memories), qualified by '基于当前上下文', so an agent can infer it is a memory-recall tool for the current conversation. However, it does not explicitly say it searches stored memories and does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_history or context, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as context, get_history, or log_*. The phrase '基于当前上下文' only vaguely implies relevance to the current conversation, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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