召回相关记忆

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

Annotations already confirm readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context: it returns only a small set of relevant memories and explains why each hit was returned.

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 with no wasted text, and the usage trigger is front-loaded before the return behavior. Every sentence 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 10-parameter retrieval tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but leaves optional filters unexplained. An agent cannot determine how to use the filtering parameters from the description.

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 20%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond implying the required query. It provides no meaning for tags, kinds, limit, minScore, namespace, timestamp, includeArchived, recentTurns, or the internal request key.

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 says it returns a small amount of long-term memory relevant to the current query, which is a specific retrieval purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as memory_get_context or memory_list, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It clearly states when to call: before answering questions about user preferences, past events, project status, or existing decisions. It provides no exclusions or named alternatives, so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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