recall

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains the output is a distilled digest plus believed facts, recent events, and a budget report of omissions, and frames the result as packed into a character budget. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but 'Retrieve' and the absence of mutation language make the safety profile reasonably clear.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded, the return content is listed compactly, and the usage trigger is in a short final clause. 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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to call it. The main gaps are parameter-level detail (maxChars semantics, default behavior) and explicit read-only confirmation, but the core invocation context is present.

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 add the meaning. It does so at a high level: 'query' is the relevance input and the output is 'packed into a character budget,' which maps to maxChars. However, it never names maxChars, states what happens when it is omitted, or describes how the budget size changes results, so it stops short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('project memory relevant to a query') and adds the return shape. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like facts, but the general recall scope is clear enough for selection.

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?

Provides explicit temporal guidance: call at the start of a session or before relying on past context. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it is clear context but not full routing.

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