memory.recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search but says nothing about how results are ranked, whether minConfidence affects ordering, whether this reads across all sessions or is scoped, or any auth/rate constraints — a significant gap for a search tool.

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?

A single tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally explain what a result looks like (e.g., pattern/insight objects with confidence scores, matched sessions), but it does not. Combined with zero annotations and no usage guidance, the definition is thin for a 4-parameter search tool.

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 four parameters (query, limit, language, minConfidence) are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it neither exceeds nor falls below the baseline.

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 verb (Search) and resource (code memory) and clarifies the content type returned (patterns, solutions, insights from past sessions). It distinguishes the tool's domain from retrieval-only siblings like code.* and github.*, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory.related, memory.stats, or github.search_code, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the purpose statement.

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