memcp_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains parameter behaviors well, especially max_tokens ('Token budget — returns results until budget is exhausted') and scope options. It does not mention read-only nature or side effects, but the retrieval semantics are implied. Overall, it adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a usage hint and a list of parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and usage. It covers the main use case, parameter filters, and the suggestion to call at session start. It does not discuss error handling or empty results, but with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 provides explanations for all 8 parameters (e.g., query searches content, tags, and summary). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles. While it lacks examples or value ranges, it clearly defines each parameter's role, earning a 4.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve insights from memory.' It specifies the kind of content retrieved (decisions, preferences, technical findings) and distinguishes itself from siblings like memcp_remember (write) and memcp_search (likely a different search mode). The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'insights' are specific, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does.

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 a clear usage hint: 'Call at session start to load relevant context.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings (e.g., memcp_search for different search needs). The context is clear but lacks exclusions, earning a 4.

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