memory_episode_recall

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as result ordering, pagination, or what constitutes an 'episode'. It is consistent with annotations but provides no extra value beyond them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and search dimensions with zero waste. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward search tool.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify what an 'episode' is, how impact is measured, what the default limit means, or what the return structure looks like. An agent calling this tool would lack critical information for correct 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 only 17% (only the query parameter has a description). The tool description lists the searchable fields (concepts, outcome, project, impact) but does not explain their semantics or how they interact. Parameters like min_impact and limit are not elaborated, leaving agents to infer meaning from names alone.

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 finds past episodes and lists the search dimensions (concepts, outcome, project, impact). It distinguishes from many sibling memory tools by focusing on episodes, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to differentiate from, leaving some ambiguity against memory_recall or memory_timeline.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over memory_recall, memory_timeline, or memory_search_by_tag, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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