lore_recommend_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Does NOT write any links') and returns ranked candidates with scores. It does not cover error handling or prerequisites, but the core behavioral trait is clear.

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 with two sentences, front-loading purpose and output, then adding critical behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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 output format is partially described ('ranked candidates with per-signal scores'), and the tool relationship is given. However, input parameters are not elaborated, and differentiation from other siblings (e.g., lore_search) is missing. Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description only implicitly explains 'lore_id' as the source memory through phrasing. 'top_k' is not mentioned at all. The description does not add sufficient meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameter purpose unclear.

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 suggests link candidates between a memory and related memories, using specific action ('suggest') and resource ('link candidates'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lore_insert' by explicitly noting that it does not write links.

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 clear context for using this tool (to get link candidates) and directs to call lore_insert for actual writing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it beyond the write action.

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