memory_recall

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Search' but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or permissions. The phrase 'persistent cross-session memory' adds context, but more detail on what happens during a search would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and then gives the triggering condition, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 search tool, the description covers the core purpose and when to use it. The output schema exists to explain return values, so that burden is covered. It could mention result behavior or edge cases, but the current description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 needed to compensate for parameter meanings, but it provides none. The parameter names (query, k, workspace) offer some inference, but the description does not explain their roles, such as k controlling result count or workspace filtering scope. This is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the user's persistent cross-session memory'), clearly explaining what the tool does. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool memory_add by focusing on recall rather than addition, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit context for when to use this tool: 'Call before answering questions about project history, past decisions, or user preferences.' This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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