recall_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-mutating nature via 'Retrieve' and explicitly states the return behavior: 'Returns ranked results combining vector similarity with Cypher filters.' This is sufficient for a query-only tool, though it does not mention errors or prerequisites.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, with the primary verb and resource front-loaded. It efficiently lists all key filtering dimensions and the output behavior in minimal space.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main input dimensions and indicates the ranked-result output. It does not detail the exact result shape or disambiguate from hippocampus_search_events, but the complete parameter schema compensates for most omitted details.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by mapping parameters to retrieval concepts: query to semantic similarity, emotional_range to emotional valence, temporal_range to temporal range, and involves_entities to entity involvement. It also explains that these filters combine with vector similarity.

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 identifies the operation ('Retrieve memories') and specifies distinct retrieval dimensions (semantic similarity, emotional valence, temporal range, entity involvement). This differentiates it from sibling tools like hippocampus_search_events by focusing on memory recall with hybrid vector + Cypher filtering.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools such as hippocampus_search_events. The usage context is implied by the retrieval-focused description, but there are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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