cerebro_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only recall operation with no destructive side effects, which is adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees or mention of potential rate limits or permissions.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage options are covered efficiently.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return format need not be explained) and low complexity (2 optional params), the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It lacks mention of limitations or errors, but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter (search by meaning vs empty for recent) but does not detail 'limit' beyond schema default. This adds value for one parameter but leaves the other partially inferred.

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 tool retrieves past recorded notes ('decisions/rules/gotchas') by meaning or most recent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cerebro_note (recording) and cerebro_search (likely full-text search) by emphasizing recall before re-deriving.

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 provides explicit guidance: use 'BEFORE re-deriving them' to avoid redundant work, and explains how to pass a query or leave empty for recent notes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear.

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