Memory Recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the item_format parameter and token savings, but does not disclose how relevance is determined or what data fields are returned beyond format notes. Overall, adds some context beyond annotations.

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 long. First sentence states purpose clearly. Second sentence provides actionable usage detail for the format parameter. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the function of most parameters, filtering capabilities (e.g., paths, tags, kind) or how the required query is used. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but still not enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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% and there are 12 parameters. The description only explains the item_format parameter (and its enum values), leaving 11 parameters (including the required query) entirely undocumented. This is severely insufficient for an AI agent to use all parameters correctly.

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 'Recall the most relevant local memories for a task or query' using a specific verb and resource. It implies a ranked retrieval, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_get.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like localnest_memory_get, localnest_memory_list, or other memory tools. It only hints at token savings via item_format but lacks contextual selection advice.

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