trusted_memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds only a vague governance claim ('admission and lifecycle policy enforced') and does not explain what that means operationally, whether the operation is read-only, how failures are surfaced, or what response shape to expect.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. The phrasing 'admission and lifecycle policy enforced' is jargon that adds ambiguity rather than meaningful structure.

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 tool with 11 policy-related parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about query semantics, parameter roles, return values, or governance behavior, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.

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% and the description mentions none of the 11 parameters. Parameters such as 'clearance', 'tenant_id', 'principal_id', 'memory_types_json', and 'groups_json' are completely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to infer their meaning from either description or schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recall') and identifies a resource ('governed memory'), so an agent can tell this is a retrieval/query operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_memory or company_memory_search, both of which also imply memory retrieval.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'governed memory' hints at a policy-aware context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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