recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results default to current, non-conflicted memories and that stale items are reported as warnings, which adds behavioral context. Yet it omits whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and the default result handling.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain scope, limit, query syntax, or return shape, and it lacks any guidance on handling warnings or stale items beyond the default behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly explains include_stale via the default filtering behavior and implies a search query, but says nothing about limit, scope, or the format of query. This is insufficient for a tool with four undocumented parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search memory.' This distinguishes it from siblings like remember, supersede, and invalidate, which are write or lifecycle operations. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as explain_memory, audit_memory, or review_changes. It only implies usage through the word 'Search' and default filtering behavior, with no exclusions or context.

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