memory_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not define what 'active' means, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or limits. While 'recall' clearly implies a read operation, the meaning of 'active' is a significant ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff and communicates the core functionality efficiently.

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 filtered-list tool, the description is adequate, but it leaves key context unexplained: the meaning of 'active' and the expected return format (since no output schema exists). The lack of such details reduces completeness.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, including detailed enum descriptions for the 'type' parameter. The description simply echoes 'filtered by type or tags' without adding any new meaning or context beyond the schema.

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 recalls all active memories with optional filtering by type or tags. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'all active' distinguishes it from siblings like memory_search or memory_related.

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 clearly implies the primary use case: retrieving the complete set of active memories, with the option to narrow results. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of filtering is clear.

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