memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description adds one behavioral note: 'Every recall is logged as a receipt.' However, it does not disclose read-only nature, side effects beyond logging, or rate limits. The note on receipt logging is partially contradicted by the 'audited' parameter description (see parameter semantics).

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 two sentences: first states the core purpose, second lists key features and a behavioral claim. No redundant words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic use and one side effect. However, it omits explanation of the return format, pagination behavior, and the relationship between receipt logging and the 'audited' parameter, leaving ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes filtering by entity_type, entity_id, and scope but adds no novel meaning beyond the schema. The mention of receipt logging conflicts with the audited parameter description, causing slight confusion.

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+resource phrase 'Search and retrieve stored memories' and distinguishes from siblings like memory_observe (create) and memory_forget (delete) by focusing on retrieval and filtering.

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 implies usage for text search and filtering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_audit or memory_entities. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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