Recall Memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, fully covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that (e.g., returns JSON array), so it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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 reasonably concise, using a docstring format that lists parameters and return value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. A slightly shorter version could achieve the same clarity.

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 retrieval tool with 5 fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description provides adequate context: purpose, parameters, and return type. It does not discuss ordering or pagination, but these are less critical given the limit parameter.

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 parameters. The description repeats the parameter list and default/range for limit, but adds no deeper meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'memories from NeuroVerse's tiered memory system', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'neuroverse_store' and 'neuroverse_assemble_context'.

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 for memory recall but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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