marm_concept_recall

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that returns empty lists (not errors) when the graph hasn't been built or no matches exist, which sets correct expectations. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but that is implied from the search nature. This is adequate but could be improved.

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 well-structured with a brief paragraph followed by bullet points for parameters. It uses formatting (emoji, bold) to aid readability. While it could be slightly more concise, it doesn't waste words and every sentence adds value.

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 explains inputs well but the return structure is only briefly mentioned ('Returns: entities, related_entities, linked_code') without further detail on the shape or content. This is a gap, but the tool's purpose is still understandable. It meets minimum viability.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so for all 7 parameters: each has a clear purpose, default values, and acceptable ranges (e.g., limit 1-100, depth 1-5, direction enum). It adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines types and defaults.

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 searches the concept graph for entities, relationships, and linked code. It uses a specific verb (search, query) and resource (concept graph). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like marm_smart_recall or marm_graph_trace, leaving ambiguity.

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 guidance on query styles ('bare concept name' vs 'related to X'), which helps with when to use each. However, it lacks explicit advice on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., vs marm_smart_recall for smarter retrieval, or marm_graph_trace for tracing). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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