recall_memory

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 discloses that results are sorted by priority and recency, which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or the non-destructive nature, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and resource, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the sorting order and the types of content retrievable. It could mention default limit (implied by schema) or error scenarios, but it covers the main usage context well.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining format or relationships). It mentions sorting of results, not parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the verb 'recall', the resource 'stored memories', and the scope 'current project'. It provides specific examples of what to retrieve (codebase knowledge, conventions, decisions, context), making the purpose clear and distinguishing it from siblings like store_memory or delete_memory.

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 says 'Use this to retrieve...' which gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to siblings like list_memories or search_conversations, so it falls short of a 5.

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