cogvault_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the retrieval mechanism (hybrid semantic + keyword), the shape of the result (relevant memory cards), and implies a read-only operation. It stops short of stating permissions or that results are ranked/limited by default, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 paragraph that front-loads what is searched, then the call-priority instruction, then the query format and return shape. No sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does ('returns the most relevant memory cards'). What remains unstated is the granularity of a memory card and the effect of the type filter, minor gaps for a 3-parameter search tool.

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 67%, and the description usefully specifies the query style ('short natural-language query') that the terse schema ('What to recall') does not convey. However it adds nothing about the `type` filter (e.g. user/feedback/project/reference) or the `limit` parameter, leaving those to 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 (Search) and resource (persistent memory of earlier sessions) and enumerates the content covered — past bugs/fixes, decisions, deployment, resource locations, preferences. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling cogvault_record, which writes rather than reads.

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 prescribes precedence ('Call this FIRST — before reading code, logs or config') and gives concrete trigger phrasings ('why does X…', 'how do we…', 'what did we decide…'). It states the condition under which the tool is the right choice rather than leaving it to inference.

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