Recall memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool searches a full-text index and returns recent matching interactions, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ranked, or whether recent interactions are subject to the limit parameter. This is adequate for a search tool but leaves some behavioral details implicit.

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 with no filler. The core search scope is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is immediately actionable. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what is searched, the retrieval scope, and when to use it. It does not describe the exact return structure, but it gives enough context for an agent to invoke recall correctly before starting a task.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'topic' and 'limit'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only clarifying that the search targets preferences and lessons. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('preferences + lessons via full-text index, plus recent matching interactions'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It is specific enough to distinguish recall from siblings like search_history or get_recent_interactions, even without naming them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use before starting a new task.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance is clear and actionable for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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