dakera_batch_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Listing' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or limits. While the core behavior is implied, more detail 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 consists of two concise sentences, no filler. It front-loads the key information (filter types) and ends with a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient for an agent 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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and siblings like dakera_recall and dakera_search, the description is somewhat lean. It provides essential usage guidance but omits details about response format, default behavior, ordering, or limits. For a complex filtering tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 63%, and the description maps the listed filter types to most parameters (tags, importance range, time window, type, session). However, it does not add meaningful details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format constraints, interplay between filters). The description adds some value but falls short of compensating for the uncovered parameters.

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 it's a filter-based memory listing tool, specifying the filter types (tags, importance range, time window, type, session). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling dakera_recall by noting to prefer this when semantic search is not needed, 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 guidance: 'Prefer over dakera_recall when semantic search is not needed' and 'At least one filter required.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives and imposes a clear constraint, fully satisfying this dimension.

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