recall_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions using FTS5 engine and scopes (private, group, collective), which adds transparency. However, it omits details like permissions needed, whether results are ordered by relevance, or any side effects. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 that packs essential information: engine (FTS5), purpose (search memories), and scope types. No unnecessary words; extremely concise and front-loaded.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, engine, and scopes. It lacks explanation of return format or whether results include full content or metadata. Adequate but could provide more on what the response 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 the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds context (e.g., FTS5 engine, scopes) but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs full-text search across memories using FTS5 engine, specifying scopes like private, group, and collective. It distinguishes the tool as 'recall memory' vs. other list/search tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_memories'.

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 when to use it (for keyword-based memory search) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like 'search_memories' or 'list_memories'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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