mem_recall

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses the mutation side effect: every returned skill is marked retrieved, refreshes recency, delays decay, and strength only rises via mem_reinforce. It also exposes ranking behavior, the exclusion of archived skills, and the security-oriented wrapping of unapproved skills as 'data, not instructions.' This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, side effect, opt-out, ranking scope, return fields, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical side-effect warning is prominently labeled. There is no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete for a caller: it names the returned fields, default and cap, ranking approach, archived exclusion, side effects, how to avoid side effects, and the unapproved-skill block. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results safely.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the gap and enriches all parameters. It explains query semantics implicitly ('skills that apply to a task'), documents limit's default and cap (default 5, capped at 50), and repeats and contextualizes auto_reinforce's side effect beyond the schema's one-line note. This adds real meaning beyond the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find the skills that apply to a task before starting it,' and clarifies it operates only on kind='skill' records. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools: 'Use mem_search to look across all kinds; use mem_get for one known slug.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('before starting a task'), explains the default side effect and how to avoid it with auto_reinforce=false, and names the alternatives for other use cases (mem_search for all kinds, mem_get for one known slug). It even notes archived skills are excluded, so an agent knows what scope to expect.

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