recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavior: 'Automatically searches both project memory and global cross-project memory (rules, learnings) when REMEM_GLOBAL_SESSION_KEY is configured.' This goes beyond a simple retrieval statement and informs the agent of multi-source search. It does not detail side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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 exactly three sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, usage timing, and scope of search. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys necessary context without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description could have provided more about return behavior, but it does clarify the global memory feature and when to invoke it. The schema covers parameter details well, so the description complements rather than duplicates. It is reasonably complete for a retrieval tool, though it could hint at response format or pagination, which are covered by the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not mention parameters like query, mode, or type, but the schema fully documents them. No extra value is added.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve relevant past memory'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'related' by focusing on past memory retrieval. It also adds usage context ('Call this tool before you answer the user') that further clarifies its purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it when the user references past work or when the task needs project context.' It also provides context about automatic searching across project and global memory. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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