dakera_recall

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds detail about KG expansion behavior, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free or auth requirements. However, the read-only intent is clear from the verb.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase provides useful information (top-k, semantic closeness, preference, include_associated). No 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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key usage context (preference over batch recall, KG expansion). However, the required agent_id parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in prose, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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?

The description adds meaning to 'top_k' with 'top-k' and to 'include_associated' with the KG edge explanation. Since the schema already provides descriptions for most parameters, this adds context beyond the schema, though some parameters (e.g., agent_id) are not elaborated.

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?

Clearly states the action (retrieve), the resource (memories), and the criterion (semantically closest to a query). It also distinguishes from the sibling dakera_batch_recall, 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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over dakera_batch_recall for query-based retrieval, and advises setting include_associated to expand via KG edges. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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