recall_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the return format (list with IDs) and the scoping of memories via the API key parameter (private vs shared). It does not mention read-only nature or side effects, but for a retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 four sentences, all front-loaded with the main action and essential details. Every sentence contributes unique value: the action, the content type, usage context, and return format. No wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (list of memories with IDs). It could benefit from mentioning what fields each memory contains, but given the lack of nested objects and enums, it is still complete enough for an agent to use.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema's parameter descriptions. The schema itself sufficiently documents each parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states it retrieves memories relevant to a query, with specific mention of user preferences, past instructions, and facts. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like memory_get or memory_search, which likely have similar functionality.

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 says 'Call this when persistent context would help answer the current request,' providing a when-to-use condition. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools among the siblings, so the guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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