Recall memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat that. It adds the concepts of 'bounded' and relevance to the current task, which are minor behavioral cues, but it does not disclose retrieval mechanism, result format, or error handling. The added value is modest.

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 sentence with no wasted words and the primary action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity may contribute to the lack of parameter and usage clarity.

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?

With 6 parameters (2 required), low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to construct the query, what 'limit' or 'max_tokens' control, or what the response contains. An agent would need to consult other sources to call this tool correctly.

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 33% (only bank and workspace have descriptions). The tool description neither explains the remaining parameters (query, as_of, limit, max_tokens) nor provides any parameter-level guidance. The phrase 'bounded source observations' hints at limits but does not map to specific parameters, failing to compensate for the low 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 uses a clear verb ('Retrieve') and a resource ('bounded source observations'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'record' and 'forget'. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'bank' parameter or clarify the meaning of 'bounded', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'explain' or 'correct'. The only contextual hint is 'relevant to the current task', which is vague and does not explain prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer recall over other memory operations.

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