memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, authentication, or return behavior. It only states 'Recall', implying read-only, but fails to mention case sensitivity, uniqueness, or how missing parameters behave.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It states the core function but provides no additional context or organization beyond that.

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 many sibling tools and three optional parameters with no descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not address expected output (despite an output schema), parameter relationships, or the tool's specific role in the broader set.

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 explain parameters. It mentions memory_id and title but omits the project parameter entirely. No explanation that parameters may be combined or are mutually exclusive, leaving ambiguity.

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 retrieves a specific memory by ID or exact title, differentiating it from siblings like memory_search (likely fuzzy) and memory_list. The verb 'recall' and resource 'memory' are precise.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_search or memory_list. The description implies exact matching but does not explicitly advise against using for fuzzy or list operations.

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