recall_memory

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 mentions retrieval and optional inclusion of related memories, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error behavior (e.g., what happens if the key doesn't exist), performance characteristics, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve a value by key from memory') and adds a useful qualifier ('with optional related memories'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavioral nuances. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which is incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'optional related memories' which aligns with the 'include_related' parameter but doesn't explain what 'related' means or how 'max_related' interacts with it. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a value by key from memory' specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (value from memory). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_memory' (destructive) and 'list_memories' (bulk retrieval), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_linked_memories' or 'find_related_memories' which have overlapping retrieval functions.

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 usage through the phrase 'with optional related memories,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving specific memories and potentially their context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'find_related_memories' or 'get_linked_memories,' leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names.

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