memory_recall_structural

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the TEM role->filler binding mechanism and the 'Read-only' statement, but these do not significantly enrich the agent's understanding of operational behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, though it also does not disclose return format or side effects beyond what annotations already imply.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short phrases that convey purpose, safety, and usage preference. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core concept. No unnecessary filler or repetition exists.

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?

The tool has a detailed input schema with all parameters documented, a rich output schema, and strong annotations. The description covers the core purpose and usage differentiation. It does not explain return values, but the output schema presumably handles that, and the overall definition is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 100%, and the parameter descriptions are detailed, including hard caps, budget behavior, and the meaning of omitted structure_query. The description text itself does not add further parameter semantics beyond relating the tool to 'role-filler queries', which is already evident from the schema. Therefore the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs structural recall via TEM role->filler bindings (BSC hypervectors), giving a specific mechanism and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool memory_recall by noting it is preferred for role-filler queries, making its 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 usage guidance: 'Prefer over memory_recall for role-filler queries' directly tells when to use this tool over an alternative. The parameter schema further explains when structure_query is omitted, warning of an expensive full-corpus scan, which supplements the when-to-use context.

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