recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it avoids side effects or describe behaviors like result truncation or the hybrid search default. It does add worthwhile context (call before answering), but stops short of full 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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 retrieval tool with well-documented parameters and clear when-to-use guidance, the description is mostly complete. It does not detail the return format or empty-result behavior, but the schema covers parameters and the workflow instruction ('Call this tool before you answer the user') gives contextual grounding. A brief note that it is read-only would strengthen completeness.

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%, and the schema provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters (query, mode, limit, offset, max_tokens, session_key). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve relevant past memory'), which clearly states the core function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture (store) and forget (delete). It does not explicitly contrast with the 'search' sibling, but the resource type (past memory) is clear enough.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this tool before you answer the user' and 'Use it when the user references past work or when the task needs project context.' It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., using 'search' for other types of retrieval), so it does not earn a 5.

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