retrieve_from_global_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns search results with success, entries, and count, but does not mention side effects or authentication needs. For a read operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the args list. No redundant information.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks context on when to use this tool versus other global memory tools, and does not explain the behavior of tags or limit parameters beyond their names.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It lists all 4 parameters with brief descriptions, but contradicts the schema by marking 'caller_agent_id' as required when it is actually optional with a default null. This contradiction reduces clarity.

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 tool retrieves knowledge from global memory, common across all projects. It distinguishes it from project-specific memory tools like 'retrieve_from_memory' in the sibling list, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 mentions 'common across all projects', implying use for cross-project data, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like 'retrieve_from_memory'.

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