mem_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently reveals the key side effect: 'Auto-reinforces retrieved skills.' It also explains the ranking behavior, which is important for interpreting results. It could mention that reinforcement can be disabled via the auto_reinforce parameter, but the schema already documents that.

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?

Two concise, dense sentences deliver the purpose, context, ranking mechanism, and side effect without any filler. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, ranking, and side effects, but there is no output schema and the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns, how limit affects results, or that auto_reinforce can be disabled. An agent would need to infer the return shape from the word 'Find.'

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 description adds ranking semantics beyond the schema, such as BM25 and Ebbinghaus weighting, which enriches the meaning of 'query.' However, it does not explain the limit parameter, and the auto_reinforce behavior is already described in the schema. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Find relevant skills'), the context ('before starting a task'), and the unique retrieval mechanism (BM25 relevance weighted by Ebbinghaus strength). This distinguishes mem_recall from generic search tools like mem_search and from reinforcement-specific tools like mem_reinforce.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a pre-task step, giving clear context for when it should be used. However, it does not name sibling alternatives like mem_search or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, though the auto-reinforcement note indirectly signals that it replaces a separate reinforce step.

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