mem_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns 'the project's own memories plus cross-project patterns' and that it auto-detects the project from cwd. It does not mention side effects, but as a recall operation, it is likely read-only. Could be more transparent about idempotency or performance, but still informative.

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: first sentence states purpose, then explains return and timing, followed by auto-detection detail and Args section. Every sentence is essential and adds value, with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the most important information.

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 has an output schema (context signal shows true), the description does not need to explain returns. It covers purpose, usage context, auto-detection behavior, and parameters. For a recall tool with 2 optional params, this is complete and no major gaps are present.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'project' (auto-detected if omitted) and 'cwd' (defaults to os.getcwd()). It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, making the parameters clear and compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 immediately states 'Recall relevant memories for a project at session start,' specifying the verb 'recall' and the resource 'memories for a project.' It distinguishes from siblings like mem_search (search) and mem_save/ingest/forget (modify) by focusing on context loading. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this at the beginning of a coding session to load context,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains auto-detection when no project is given. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., mem_search for more specific queries), but the context is strong.

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