recall_public

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it does not consume recall quota, returns author attribution and relevance scores. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized with labeled sections, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the 'FILTERS' section slightly repeats schema details.

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 description explains return values (list with author attribution, relevance scores, recall counts) despite no output schema. However, it omits how the 'page' parameter works (pagination limits, default behavior), leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides additional semantics for parameters (e.g., 'semantic search query', 'by recall count' for sort) and gives an example call, adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states 'Search public memories shared by all Purmemo users' with clear verb (search) and resource (public memories). It distinguishes from sibling 'recall_memories' (private) and 'get_public_memory' (single memory fetch).

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 'WHEN TO USE' section lists four concrete scenarios with user-question phrasing. It also specifies what the tool does NOT do (count against quota), providing clear boundaries.

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