memory_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers well. It states the operation is read-only, explains the low_confidence behavior, describes the default fact/edge shapes, and summarizes the return payload. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into usage guidance, fallback behavior, parameter details, and return structure. Every sentence contributes distinct value, and the structured Args/Returns layout is easy to scan without being bloated.

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 is complex (graph multi-hop retrieval) with no annotations, but the description covers purpose, usage, safety (read-only), fallback behavior, parameter semantics for most params, and return values. The only clear gap is the semantics of top_k, but overall this is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 adds meaning for 'hops' (max 5, graph links) and 'verbose' (full provenance with explicit shape), and implicitly for 'query' via seed entity. However, 'top_k' is not explained at all, leaving one of four parameters without added semantics.

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 names the tool as 'Multi-hop retrieval over the knowledge graph' and specifies the exact use case: RELATIONAL questions answered by following links, with concrete examples. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool memory_search by noting what it can chain that single-shot search cannot.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('for RELATIONAL questions whose answer is reached by following links') and an explicit fallback rule: if low_confidence is true, no seed entity matched, so fall back to memory_search. This clearly frames the tool relative to its alternative.

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