memory_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions persistence to .validpilot/memory/ and multi-dimensional recall, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., forget operations are permanent) or rate limits. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 a single paragraph that is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be broken into structured points for clarity. Every sentence contributes value, but it remains dense.

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 complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, enums) and lack of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains memory types and recall dimensions but does not clarify return format, error cases, or the exact behavior of forget operations. Adequate but with gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds high-level context (e.g., '支持文本相似度+标签+主机多维度召回') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a cross-session memory system for retrieving, consolidating, listing, and forgetting historical validation findings and repair patterns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on memory management, not browser actions or validation.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the operations (recall, consolidate, list, forget, stats), it does not specify under what circumstances each operation should be chosen. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice is given.

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