recall_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Retrieves' and names the source as vector storage, signaling a non-mutating read operation and semantic-relevance selection. It does not cover edge cases like permissions or errors, but for a read tool the core behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: all parameters are explained, default behavior is specified, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The missing alternative guidance is already accounted for in usage guidelines.

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 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates with meaningful definitions for all three parameters: user_id, query, and limit. It adds clarity about the query as a topic/question/context and the default limit of 5, which the schema alone does not provide.

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?

States a specific operation: retrieving semantically relevant memories from vector storage given a natural language query. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_user_memories, which implies listing rather than semantic search.

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 implies when to use the tool—when semantic recall from a natural language query is needed—but it does not explicitly distinguish this from list_user_memories or other alternatives. An agent must infer the usage boundary from wording and sibling names.

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