memory_recall

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: output is deterministic, token-budgeted, and project-scoped unless inheritance is explicit. This is modest value beyond annotations, with no contradiction.

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 two short sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a relevant scoping constraint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is too sparse for an agent to invoke it correctly. It omits what 'context packet' means, what query and scopes do, which fields are needed, and what the tool returns. The project-exclusion note is a small fragment of the needed context.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the six parameters. It only hints at token budgeting and inherited project IDs; query, scopes, session_id, and project_root are left entirely unexplained. This is far below what a 0%-coverage tool requires.

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 identifies a concrete action and output ('Build a deterministic token-budgeted context packet') and adds a project-scoping rule, so a basic purpose is present. However, 'context packet' is vague jargon and the recall/retrieval nature is only implied by the tool name. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as memory_engineering_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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings like memory_engineering_context, memory_remember, or memory_status. The only additional statement—that other projects are excluded unless inherited—describes a behavioral constraint, not a usage condition or alternative selection.

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