butlerRecall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it guarantees one value per subject+predicate and states results are already resolved for contradictions and retractions, which tells the agent how to interpret output.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core purpose front-loaded and the filtering hint last. No waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially covers return semantics (one resolved value per subject+predicate), which is enough for an agent to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around pagination/limits beyond what the schema already states.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, subject, minTrust, and predicate thoroughly (including the 0.6 trust default). The description only echoes the subject filter, so the baseline 3 is correct — it does not meaningfully expand on parameter meaning.

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 (Read) and resource (what Butler believes about the user), and the return shape is implied. It is distinguishable from the butlerRemember/butlerForget siblings by the read framing, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Filter by subject to narrow" gives a usage hint for one parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the remember/forget siblings it competes with. Usage is only implied.

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