tool_recall_by_gravity

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains the behavioral traits: diffusion activation along gravitational links, depth controlling recall and noise, and threshold for link activation. It does not cover all possible side effects or permissions, but for a recall tool, the description is transparent enough.

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: starts with purpose and usage, then parameter details. It is front-loaded with the most important info. However, the parameter section is somewhat verbose with Chinese formatting and emojis, but 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 covers parameters well but does not describe the return format or error behavior. It mentions activating associated memories but no structure. For full completeness, it should hint at the output (e.g., list of memory objects).

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 the description must compensate. It does so excellently: explains query as natural language, query_tags as required extraction by AI, max_activations default and max, gravity_threshold adjustment guidance, memory_type_filter, time_range format, depth default and max. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare 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: '引力联想检索' (gravitational associative recall). It explains the mechanism of spreading from entry nodes along gravitational links to activate associated memories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tool_recall_by_coordinate by positioning itself as the core differentiation for topic-based or associative recall.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when the user mentions a topic, needs associative recall, or says 'do you remember...'. It also provides guidance on adjusting gravity_threshold for broader or more precise recall. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools imply alternatives.

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