dakera_batch_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior the schema omits: the result cap 'at most limit (default 100)'. However, it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor mentions ordering, pagination, or auth requirements – gaps that matter for a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence with the capability, the defining constraint, the limit cap, and the routing rule, all front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the key filter dimensions, the result cap, and sibling routing. It is missing only ordering/pagination behavior and any mention of the required agent_id, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 56%, and the description enumerates the filter dimensions (tags, importance, time window, type, session), which loosely maps to the filter parameters. But it adds no format or semantics beyond the schema's own enum and inline descriptions, and the required 'agent_id' parameter is never mentioned anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List memories') plus the defining scope constraint ('by filters ... without a query'), which is exactly what separates it from semantic recall. It explicitly names the sibling it replaces, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule: 'Use instead of dakera_recall when no semantic search is needed,' naming both the alternative and the condition. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when relevance ranking matters) or how it relates to the other search siblings.

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