Recall memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that the tool is a read-like operation ('recall') and that it shows which memories were used, which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects, performance implications, or any caveats (e.g., the unbounded includeRecords parameter), leaving some behavioral 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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose and then the usage context. It is appropriately concise, though the first sentence ('Transparent recall for any MCP-capable harness') is slightly abstract and could be more concrete without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the return structure looks like, the role of namespace or kind, or any prerequisites. An agent would likely struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 57%, meaning several parameters (kind, limit, namespace) lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning; it only states the overall purpose. Since it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, it scores low on this dimension.

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: to recall memories and show exactly which ones were used, with a specific usage context ('at task start or before answering'). This is a clear verb-resource-purpose combination, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_memory or get_context, so it misses the top score.

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 gives explicit timing guidance ('Use this at task start or before answering'), which is a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, so it falls short of the 5-point requirement for exclusions.

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