memory_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that it performs semantic search and supports ambiguous Japanese queries, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail result format or potential limitations.

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?

Single sentence is maximally concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description could mention return format or ordering, but the tool is simple. The semantic search and language support are covered well. Slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained description, but adequate for the low complexity 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what parameter descriptions already provide (query supports Japanese/English, limit is count). The phrase 'ambiguous Japanese queries' is already implied by the query description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool recalls past memories via semantic search, and specifically mentions handling ambiguous Japanese queries. It differentiates from sibling tools like memory_store (store) and memory_facts (factual recall) by focusing on semantic retrieval with query flexibility.

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 implies use for ambiguous queries but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like memory_facts or memory_context. No comparison or exclusion conditions provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and description.

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