recall

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses mode-specific behavior (hot tier, fallback to deep, associative links, exhaustive ranking) and room scoping implications. However, it does not mention the side effect of record_hits (default true) or any potential persistence behavior, which is a notable gap.

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-structured with a front-loaded one-sentence purpose, a usage directive, and clear bullet-like mode explanations. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence contributes value, and the structure aids readability.

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 search tool with multiple modes and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, mode behaviors, room cautions, and fallback mechanisms. It is not fully complete because it omits explanation of `type` and `record_hits`, and does not disclose potential side effects, but overall it provides solid contextual guidance.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly for `mode` and `room`, but leaves `type`, `limit`, and `record_hits` unexplained. `query` and `limit` are self-evident, but `type` and `record_hits` remain ambiguous, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 opens with 'Search for and return memories,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like forget or remember. It further elaborates on mode-specific search scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Always call this at the start of a task' and provides mode-selection guidance (fast vs. deep vs. exhaustive) with clear 'last resort' and 'only when necessary' language. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is well defined.

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