recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable, non-obvious guarantee: only human-approved memories are returned, and pending/rejected ones are never surfaced. It does not describe empty-result behavior, read-only guarantees, or ordering, but the core filtering trait is clearly disclosed.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the key scoping constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 4 optional parameters, two enums, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is adequate for basic use (retrieving approved memories by query) but omits critical context: what the type/scope enums represent, how the limit behaves, whether all approved memories are returned when no query is given, and what the return structure looks like. It is a minimal viable description with clear gaps.

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 only 25% (only the query parameter has a description), so the description must compensate for type, limit, and scope. It does not: the description only echoes 'query' generically and adds no meaning for the enum values (type, scope) or the limit constraint. An agent would remain uncertain about how to properly set type, scope, or limit.

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 states a specific verb ('Recall') and a specific resource ('approved memories relevant to a query'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The additional sentence ('Only human-approved memories are returned — pending or rejected ones never surface') explicitly distinguishes this tool from memory mutation/list-pending siblings by scoping the retrieval to approved items, even though no sibling is named.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving approved memories relevant to a query, and the 'pending or rejected ones never surface' warning hints that it is not for accessing unapproved items. However, it never explicitly mentions sibling tools (e.g., list_pending, remember) or states when to choose this tool over them, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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