Recall user profile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context: returns most recent notes on empty query and uses 'contextual retrieval.' No contradictions with annotations. Slightly above baseline due to added specifics.

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 sentences plus a functional label, no filler. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 three parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain k and user_key parameters. While annotations cover safety and output schema may handle return values, the missing parameter documentation leaves the agent underinformed. The description is adequate but not complete for effective invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate but does not. It fails to explain parameters k and user_key, and only indirectly hints at query by saying 'an empty query returns the most recent notes.' User_key is mentioned but not defined as a parameter. The omission of parameter meaning is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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's purpose: 'recall a user's previously saved situation/preferences relevant to a query, via contextual retrieval.' It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself by focusing on personalization for policy recommendations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, such as search_youth_policies, leaving some ambiguity.

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 offers clear usage guidance: 'Call this before recommending policies or judging eligibility to personalize' and 'an empty query returns the most recent notes.' It also specifies to use the same user_key as when saving. While it does not list when not to use the tool, the guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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