session_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are raw verbatim fragments from the session layer rather than summarized memory, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, result ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with verb and resource, then qualifies scope and purpose. No filler, though the clause structure is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does explain the return content (verbatim fragments), which covers the main gap. It still leaves unclear how it relates to the numerous retrieval siblings and what an empty or partial result looks like.

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 limit, query, and project are already documented in the schema (including the default of 5). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb (检索) plus resource (历史对话原文), and adds the return form (原话片段) and the session-layer scope. It does not name the sibling it contrasts with, so an agent must infer how it differs from memory_search or memory_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 use case (复现旧对话上下文 in a new Agent) implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative named among the many retrieval siblings (memory_search, memory_context, memory_list).

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