recall

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses the three-layer approach, context merging, and ranking, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe the output format, or mention any side effects or limitations. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 well-structured with a brief intro followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids unnecessary verbosity. It front-loads the core purpose and then details parameters efficiently.

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 description lacks details about the return value or output structure, which is important for a retrieval tool. It also omits potential edge cases or evaluation criteria. While the tool is not highly complex, the absence of output information leaves a notable gap in completeness.

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?

The description gives meaningful explanations for all four parameters (query, user_id, agent_id, limit), including purpose and default for limit. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, providing essential context beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 function: 'Three-layer memory retrieval' and explains its value over plain keyword search. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools like search_memories or semantic_search, so it lacks direct differentiation.

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?

It provides guidance on when to use it ('Better than plain keyword search for "what do I remember about X"') and highlights its unique features (merging session context, ranked relevance). Yet it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools as options.

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