recall_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool searches only memories and returns formatted text, which implies a read-only operation. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects, auth requirements, or limitations beyond the scope.

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 concise and well-structured, with a short introductory sentence, a usage note, and a compact Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easily scannable.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure. The only minor gap is omitting potential result limits or ordering, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It defines 'query' as 'What to search for in memories', which adds meaningful context beyond the bare parameter name. While brief, it sufficiently clarifies the parameter's purpose.

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 'Search memories only (without knowledge graph)', which specifies the verb (search), resource (memories), and scope (excludes knowledge graph). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_knowledge, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Useful for recalling past conversations, lessons, or facts' provides clear context on when to use this tool. It implies an alternative for knowledge graph queries, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool or state exclusions.

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