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 describes that the tool recalls past notes, can search by query or return most recent, and implies read-only behavior. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or limits, making the behavioral disclosure adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence is necessary and valuable, with no wasted words.

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, the description need not detail return values. It covers core functionality (searching, recent notes) and parameters adequately. However, the role of 'limit' is not clarified, leaving a minor completeness gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter (search by meaning, empty for recent) but does not explicitly describe 'limit' (only implied). This adds meaning beyond the schema but leaves a gap for the limit parameter.

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 verb 'recall' and the resource 'decisions/rules/gotchas recorded by past sessions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cerebro_note' (record) and 'cerebro_search' (broader search) by specifying a unique use case: 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 explicitly says to use it 'BEFORE re-deriving them', providing clear context. It also explains how to use it: pass a query or leave empty for recent notes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though siblings are listed.

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