memory_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so extensively. It reveals that context is soft by default, depth is silently clamped to at most 3 hops, metadata reports the actual depth, and metadata also reports when additional neighbors were available. These are genuine behavioral insights beyond what the schema alone could possibly convey.

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 front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance, then edge-case behaviors. Every sentence contributes meaningful operational knowledge, and there is no filler or repetition.

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's complexity — 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema — the description is unusually thorough, covering neighbor hydration, depth limits, metadata reporting, and context semantics. It falls slightly short only by omitting token_budget and by not describing the overall return shape beyond mentioning metadata and result counts.

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 compensate, and it largely does. It explains context/strict_context, include_neighbors, edge_types, neighbor_limit versus limit, and depth clamping. However, token_budget is never mentioned, leaving one of nine parameters completely undocumented in behavior and meaning.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search memories by text, context, activation, and confidence.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from memory_context by explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative for assembling working context. The occasional mention of activation and confidence could be slightly ambiguous relative to the schema, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 guidance: 'Use this for a targeted question' and 'Use memory_context to assemble working context.' It also explains when to change behavior with strict_context=true for isolation and how neighbor inclusion works. This is clear, decision-relevant usage guidance with an explicit alternative.

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