memory_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It uses '讀取' (read) to signal a read-only operation, but does not describe output format, default behavior for the 'all' block, or any potential side effects. It is adequate but minimal.

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: the first states the function, the second states usage. No redundant words or repetition of the schema. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and when to use it. It lacks detail on return format, but that is not critical for such a simple recall operation. The schema covers the 'block' parameter.

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?

The schema already covers the parameter with a description and enum. The tool description enriches this by mapping the enum values (project, learnings, decisions) to the listed content types, giving semantic meaning beyond the schema's terse label.

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 it reads the project's Core Memory to obtain context, learnings, and decisions, and specifies the two use cases (session start and anytime viewing). This verb+resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like memory_search (which searches) and memory_status (which shows status).

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?

It provides explicit usage context ('session start to restore context, or anytime to view memory content'), but does not mention when to use alternatives like memory_search instead. No exclusions are given, but the intended use cases are clear.

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