recall_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation is a read-only style search and that previews will be returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose ordering, truncation, pagination, or how matches are determined.

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 concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that define the operation and the return behavior. It wastes no words, though it could have used the available space to clarify the 'limit' parameter.

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 search tool the description is minimally viable, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should more fully clarify result behavior and the optional 'limit' parameter. It is also missing guidance that distinguishes recall_chat from semantically similar sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'query' and 'limit' fields. The description clarifies that 'query' is a content-search term, but it says nothing about 'limit', which remains an unexplained number. This is only partial compensation.

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's function: searching saved chat conversations by content and returning matching chats with previews. It is specific about the resource ('saved chat conversations') and distinguishes itself from general wiki/project search tools in the sibling list, though it does not name a specific sibling to contrast with.

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 list_chats, semantic_search, or search_in_project. The description implies a content-search use case, but an agent is left to infer the boundary between searching past chats and searching other resources.

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