mnemos_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core read-only behavior through the verb Retrieve and the notion of relevance-based selection, but it does not mention whether memories are modified, how results are ranked, or what happens when no relevant memories exist. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence: the function is stated first, followed by usage context. Both parts carry meaningful information with no redundant wording.

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?

The tool is simple — two parameters, one required, a default value, and an output schema — and the description covers the main purpose and timing. However, it lacks parameter-level detail (notably top_k) and does not explicitly assert non-mutating behavior, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It only hints at the query parameter by saying 'relevant to a query', and it gives no guidance on composing the query or on the meaning of top_k, such as it being a limit on the number of returned memories. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently set 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 uses a specific verb (Retrieve) and a resource (memories relevant to a query), which unambiguously defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes this recall operation from the sibling tools (remember, list, forget, reflect) without requiring their schemas.

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 gives a clear when-to-use hint: 'call this near the start of a task that might benefit from prior context about the user or their preferences/projects.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternative tools for other memory operations, relying instead on sibling names to imply the distinction.

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