memory_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about returning 'applicable relationships,' which is not captured by annotations, but it does not disclose return format or any additional behavioral details such as result ordering or potential empty results. This is minimally adequate given annotation coverage.

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 entire description is one concise sentence: 'Recall cited memory and its applicable relationships.' It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and directly states the core action. Every word adds meaning, achieving high efficiency without unnecessary elaboration.

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 an output schema, comprehensive parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, shifting the burden from the description to these structured fields. The description leaves some ambiguity around what 'applicable relationships' means, but given the rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for its context. A brief note on typical use cases would improve it further.

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%, with every parameter including a meaningful description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'applicable relationships' implies the query parameter relates to memory retrieval, but it does not clarify parameter interplay or defaults.

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 provides a specific verb ('Recall') and resource ('memory'), and adds 'applicable relationships' to distinguish the scope. It clearly identifies a retrieval operation, though 'cited memory' is somewhat ambiguous and does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like memory_status or memory_sync.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_sync or memory_status. The intended use is implied by the name, but the description does not state when to prefer this over the sibling tools or mention any contexts that would make this the right choice.

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