recall_context

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. While 'recall' implies read-only, it doesn't mention whether results are scoped to the current project, what happens when no matches are found, or if any session-specific memory is involved. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence, which is concise and free of waste. However, it is so brief that it lacks structural components like usage notes or examples, making it only acceptable in this dimension.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least mention what the return value looks like or typical usage scenarios. It does neither, leaving a basic retrieval tool under-specified and incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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% and the description does not explain the 'query' parameter beyond its string type. The phrase 'memorized endpoints and decisions' does not clarify whether the query is a search term, exact identifier, or natural language, leaving the agent without necessary semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'recall' and identifies the resource as 'memorized endpoints and decisions,' clearly indicating a retrieval operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memorize_endpoint or generate_* tools, though it doesn't specify the search or filter behavior.

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, such as memorize_endpoint, or when not to use it. It only states what it does, omitting context, exclusions, or alternative references.

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