memory_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions building prompt-ready recall context and reading active context/experience, which suggests read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that no memory is modified, nor does it reveal any limitations, permissions, or side effects. Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose 'Recall long-term memory.' It lists operations efficiently without wasted words, though the enumeration is somewhat broad. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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's complexity (13 parameters), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It does not explain how the different actions map to parameters or what the return structure looks like. The description fails to provide adequate context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 the description does not compensate. It references generic operations like 'search/get/list' and 'task window' but does not explain parameters such as query, limit, id, scopeId, or action enum values. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as performing recall operations on long-term memory, with a specific verb 'recall' and resource. It lists several distinct functions (search/get/list, task window, active context) which distinguishes it from write, organize, and govern siblings, though it does not explicitly name 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 implies usage for retrieving or building recall context from memory, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like memory_write or memory_organize. No exclusions are stated, leaving some ambiguity about scenario fit.

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