nmem_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the retrieval mechanism (spreading activation) and the depth ladder, but says nothing about cost (token budgets, compact default), the read-only nature, or what the response looks like. The depth explanation largely duplicates the schema rather than adding behavioral context.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with the core purpose first and the sibling redirect last; nothing is padded. The depth enumeration is the only segment that restates structured data rather than adding new information.

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 30-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: it never mentions the rich filter surface (tier, as_of, valence, trust/arousal thresholds) or the shape of what comes back, even though the absent output schema means the description could reasonably carry some of that. The schema's 100% coverage keeps this from being inadequate, but it is only minimally sufficient.

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 all 30 parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's depth ladder repeats what the schema's depth property already says. It adds no syntax, defaults, or interactions beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Query memories') and the mechanism ('spreading activation'), then explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling nmem_context for broad recent context. An agent can pick this tool over its 9 siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when you need past context, decisions, or knowledge'), a refinement hint ('Add tags for precision'), and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('Use nmem_context instead for broad recent context'). This is when-to-use plus when-to-use-something-else.

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