memanto_recall_as_of

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. 'Recall' implies a read, but nothing states whether the tool is side-effect free, what happens when the date precedes a memory's creation, whether deleted memories are visible at their historical timestamp, or how results are ranked and truncated.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing, and the parameter note is compact. The Google-style 'Args:' block is slightly awkward in a tool description whose schema already enumerates the same argument, but it is not verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is fairly excused, but for a six-parameter retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, one documented parameter and no usage routing leaves substantial gaps. An agent cannot confidently decide between this, memanto_recall, and memanto_recall_current, nor infer how query and tags interact.

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% across six parameters, yet the description documents only as_of_date, and even there the input schema already names the field 'As Of Date'; the ISO 8601 examples are the one genuine addition. The four remaining parameters (query, agent_id, tags, limit, memory_types) get no explanation of matching behavior, scoping, or allowed type values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a temporal qualifier: 'Recall memories as they existed at a specific date.' That is meaningfully distinct from a plain recall, and the date clause signals point-in-time snapshot semantics. It stops short of naming the obvious sibling (memanto_recall_current) or otherwise making the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer memanto_recall_current for present state or memanto_recall for unversioned search, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The temporal framing weakly implies the use case, but the agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the name and one clause.

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