roam_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that results are deduplicated and that 'conventions change how results are read, not just written,' which is a valuable behavioral caveat. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraphs; the first is a single dense sentence covering core behavior, the second is a necessary warning. It is efficient with no redundant content, though the first sentence is long and complex.

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 description covers the dual retrieval source, deduplication, optional filtering/sorting, and a per-session prerequisite. It also states the return type ('combined, deduplicated list'). For a simple read-only tool with good annotations, this is adequate, though it could clarify the exact format of the returned list.

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 100%, with all four parameters described. The description mentions filter_tag and sort_by but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 primary function: 'Retrieve all stored memories on page titled ROAM_MEMORIES_TAG, or tagged block content with the same name.' It specifies the resource (memories), the source (page or tags), and the output (deduplicated list). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools by focusing on memory recall.

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 explicitly mandates calling roam_get_guidelines before using this tool, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like roam_search_for_tag, though the memory-specific scope implies the intended use case.

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