crbro_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is hybrid and results are ranked by relevance, but it does not mention read-only behavior, no-match behavior, or any prerequisites (e.g., whether boot is required). The statement adds some context but leaves important behavioral details unaddressed.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action ('Search the brain'). Every word earns its place: it states purpose, method, and result type without any fluff.

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 tool has only 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so complexity is low. The description explains the purpose and result, but it does not explain what a 'neuron' result looks like or how limit/domain affect results beyond schema. It is adequate but could be more complete by clarifying the return format or search behavior.

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 100% for all three parameters (query, limit, domain), so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about search and ranking but does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., limit default, domain filter).

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('the brain'), and describes the mechanism ('hybrid text search') and output ('matching neurons ranked by relevance'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like crbro_learn or listing tools like crbro_neurons.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving relevant knowledge when a query is provided, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like crbro_hot_topics or crbro_global_map. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so usage context is only implicit.

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