dakera_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: top_k defaults to 5 and include_associated pulls one-hop KG neighbours rather than deeper traversal. It does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, nor anything about result volume, ranking, or permissions.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core semantic-recall behavior and the default before the optional modifiers. Dense but no filler; only slight compression cost is that the parenthetical routing note is easy to skim past.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 64% schema coverage across 11 params, the description is adequate but incomplete: it never says what a recalled memory looks like, how ranking/scores are returned, or how the temporal (since/until) and language parameters behave.

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 64% with 11 params. The description adds real value the schema lacks — the top_k default of 5 and the semantics of include_associated (one hop) — and summarizes the tags/memory_type/session_id narrowers. But since/until, lang, and min_importance are untouched by either the description or (for several) 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('semantic recall ... memories closest to a query') and describes the retrieval mechanics (top_k nearest-neighbour, optional filters). It names dakera_recall_associated as the deeper alternative, though that tool is not in the sibling list, and it never distinguishes itself from dakera_search / dakera_hybrid_search / dakera_fulltext_search, which an agent must still choose between.

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?

Usage is implied: use this for semantic top-k recall with optional narrowing, and use dakera_recall_associated when you want deeper KG traversal. There is no explicit when/when-not and no routing against the several other search siblings, so the agent must infer context from the verb.

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