万忆召回记忆

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal non-obvious behavior: reranking, explicit temporal decay, and automatic gap recording on weak recall. However, it does not explain the scope or permanence of the gap-recording side effect, nor return behavior.

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 with the core retrieval concept, but it is a dense run-on packed with version markers and parenthetical implementation details. Version numbers like v5.0-v5.4 add noise without helping an agent decide how to use the tool.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not state what the return value looks like, when this tool should be preferred, or how it differs from sibling retrieval tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context for the use_graph parameter by mentioning the knowledge-graph channel, but it does not materially clarify parameter formats, ranges, or relationships 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 identifies 万忆召回记忆 as a retrieval tool by naming '检索' and specifying a four-channel hybrid retrieval process. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 万忆图谱搜索, which overlaps with the knowledge-graph channel mentioned here.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 万忆图谱搜索 or 万忆知识空白. It describes internal mechanics but not the intended selection criteria or exclusions.

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