memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it explains the adaptive escalation logic for `auto`, the cost/multi-hop trade-offs of `full` vs `lite`, the ~4x cheaper lite path, and the `sufficient`/`missing` and `stop_reason` return signals. This is unusually thorough disclosure for a memory 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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core idea ('Adaptive recall'), then layers conditionals and mode semantics without excessive padding. The dense parenthetical for `auto` is information-rich, though the overall flow could be slightly better structured.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is only partially complete. It covers behavior and mode selection well but omits any explanation of `max_items`, the full return shape beyond `sufficient`/`missing`/`stop_reason`, and does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling list/stats tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `mode` and mentions `scope` (searches scope plus global), but leaves `max_items` (default 8) entirely unexplained and does not clarify `query` formatting. Partial compensation across four undocumented parameters.

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 opening 'Adaptive recall' names the operation and resource, and the following sentences describe the retrieval behavior (searching scope plus global, sufficiency checking). It distinguishes the tool from write-oriented siblings by implication, but does not explicitly contrast it with memory_list or memory_stats. Clear purpose, though sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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 gives detailed guidance for choosing among the `mode` values (auto, full, lite) and tells the agent to verify in code/docs when `sufficient` is false. It does not, however, state when to use memory_recall instead of sibling tools like memory_list or memory_stats; that choice is left implicit.

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