memory_exploration_recall

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing result ranking by similarity and the fresh/stale verification model with changed_files/missing_files. It doesn't state pagination or result-size behavior, but the freshness semantics are the valuable addition here.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the workflow trigger and then the result semantics. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains ranking, the fresh/stale status, and the changed_files/missing_files payloads. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% with descriptions for all five parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter burden and a 3 is the baseline. The description explains what a 'stale' result contains, which loosely informs the include_stale flag, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('look up earlier exploration conclusions') tied to a codebase-question workflow, which clearly separates it from the generic memory_recall sibling. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('Before re-reading files to answer a codebase question'), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It stops short of naming the alternative to use when no cached conclusion exists, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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