tool_recall_by_coordinate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a query operation with no mention of destructive effects, but does not disclose rate limits, required permissions, or behavior when no parameters are given. Adequate 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?

Very concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage guidelines, then a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Covers purpose and parameters well. No output schema, so return values are not described. Could mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of memories). Otherwise complete for a read tool with 6 optional params.

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 0%, so description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: memory_type, event_id, time_range (with JSON format example), keyword, limit (with default and upper bound), sort_by (with options). Adds meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: precise querying of memories by time/type/event coordinates. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'tool_recall_by_gravity' by explicitly stating it is for precise search, not associative retrieval.

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 use when user specifies time range or type, and that it is not suitable for associative retrieval. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, implying alternatives.

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