memory_recall

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It mentions 'without a query' and chronological feed, but lacks details on memory boundaries, ordering behavior, pagination handling, or effect on memory state. Adequate but not deep.

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?

Highly structured with clear headers, bullet points, and no redundant sentences. Purpose is front-loaded, and every section adds value.

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?

Tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations. Description covers usage context well but omits parameter details and behavioral specifics about ordering or pagination. Adequate given complexity but incomplete.

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 40%. Description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema. It does not explain limit, order, since, cursor, or namespace semantics, leaving agent to infer from defaults/enums.

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?

Description clearly states it replays recent/important memories from a namespace without a query. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_search (query-based) and memory_get (by id).

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with specific alternatives (memory_search, memory_get) and context cues like 'new chat' or user phrases.

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