knitbrain_retrieve

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Describes it as a retrieval operation (non-destructive) but lacks details on error behavior, permissions, or response format. Adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. No filler, every word 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 the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema or annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains purpose and usage. Minor gap: could mention the response format, but no output schema exists, so it's acceptable.

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 describes the single parameter adequately ('The ⟨recall:hash⟩ or raw hash.'). Description adds context about compression and exact content but doesn't add new meaning beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states retrieving exact original bytes for a recall:hash handle produced by compression. Distinguishes from sibling tools like knitbrain_read or knitbrain_scan by specifying 'exact original bytes' and a use case.

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 a skeleton isn't enough and precise content is needed. This implies an alternative (skeleton), providing context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly list exclusions.

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