recall

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns memories with links if content contains [[link]] syntax, but does not detail fusion algorithm, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences plus a third about links; no wasted words. Could be improved by structuring as bullet points for scanning, but overall 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?

Given that output schema exists (covering return values) and there are no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and link behavior. However, it omits details about the fusion method and does not explain all parameters, leaving moderate gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters (query, top_k, category) beyond implying query as the user's question. top_k and category are left to the schema defaults. Insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it is a retrieval tool using semantic+keyword+title fusion, returning memories with links. The verb '检索' (retrieve) and resource '记忆' (memories) are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'search_memories'.

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?

Explicitly tells when to call (user asking about past records, historical decisions, pitfalls) via example phrases. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is clearly conveyed.

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