recall

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses scope (session-only, not long-term) and a cost/benefit trait (cheaper than re-reading/re-running), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or mutation behavior. Adequate but not rich for an annotation-free 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the essential scope constraint is front-loaded ahead of the cost rationale.

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 output schema covers return values and the description covers scope well, but the unexplained 'clue' parameter and the absence of any annotations leave real gaps. Complete enough to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently.

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% with two parameters ('query' required, 'clue' optional), neither documented in the schema. The description implies a search query but gives no meaning for 'clue' and no syntax/format guidance, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Search) and a precise resource (things kept earlier in this session via note or digest_output), and explicitly distinguishes it from long-term memory. An agent can separate it from sibling search_memory without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context (recall session-stored notes rather than long-term memory) and a when-to-use rationale (cheaper than re-reading files or re-running commands). It implicitly routes long-term lookups to search_memory but never names that sibling as the alternative, so the exclusion is stated but the target tool is not.

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