memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results may include archive previews only when include_archives=True, and that full text comes from memory_get_archive. It doesn't explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, but the search context implies no side effects. Overall, it provides useful behavioral context beyond a bare function call.

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 compact and efficient, packing the core purpose, usage triggers, parameter guidance, and cross-tool referral into three sentences. Information is front-loaded (the 'BEFORE' list), and every clause adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not detail the output beyond mentioning archive previews. With 11 optional parameters and only about half explained, the description leaves room for ambiguity on filtering (tags, language, framework) and result count (max_results). An agent may need to consult defaults or infer behavior.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers 'problem', 'query', 'file_path', and 'include_archives' with usage cues, but leaves 'tags', 'project', 'adaptive', 'language', 'framework', 'max_results', and 'include_user_profile' unexplained. This is partial compensation; the agent must infer meaning for the rest from parameter names alone.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search team knowledge base before solving problems.' It specifies the resource (knowledge base) and the action (search), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining that it returns archive previews only and directs users to memory_get_archive for full text. This preempts confusion with other memory tools.

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 gives explicit 'BEFORE' scenarios (debugging, implementing unfamiliar code, design decisions, etc.) and parameter guidance: 'problem' for focused solutions, 'query' for exploratory search, 'file_path' for context. It also tells when to use memory_get_archive for full text, clearly routing the agent between tools.

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