recall_context

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

No annotations provided, and the description is too terse. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, returns multiple results, or any side effects. The description only repeats the tool's purpose without behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 memory retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It fails to specify what constitutes 'organizational memory', the format of results, or how to formulate effective queries. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter description 'What to search for in memory'. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 'recall' and resource 'prior findings from organizational memory'. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'save_finding' and 'query_audit_log' by implying it retrieves stored findings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other retrieval tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'query_logs' or 'query_audit_log'.

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