recall_memory

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 describes the tool as a search operation, which implies it is non-destructive, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool that may involve multiple operations (search vs. stats).

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 at two sentences and front-loads the main purpose. However, it could be more structured with bullet points or clearer separation of use cases. It is appropriately sized but lacks explicit structure.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., pattern details, correction records). It mentions 'memory stats' but does not describe the format or content of the response. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, search and stats), the description is incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The description adds limited value by grouping parameters (memo/partner for pattern search, show_stats for stats) but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what is in the 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: searching past classification patterns and correction history. It specifies the use of transaction descriptions (memo) and partner names to reference patterns and confirm classification rationale, and mentions memory stats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify_transaction (for actual classification) and correct_classification (for corrections).

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 implies usage when needing to reference past patterns to justify classifications or check memory stats, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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