memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and content type, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires any authentication or permissions. The behavioral characteristics are largely opaque.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. Ideal length for a tool description.

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 is minimally viable for a simple search tool with good schema coverage and an output schema. However, it lacks contextual details that would help an agent choose among many memory-related siblings (e.g., when to use recall vs search_soul_memory vs query_memory_graph). More context about persistence and the nature of results would improve completeness.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'query' and 'category'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters well but description does not enrich them.

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 the verb 'search' and the resource 'persistent memory', specifying the content type (learnings, mistakes, insights). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_soul_memory or query_memory_graph, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between memory_recall and other memory-related tools.

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