semantic_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 does disclose the keyword-matching mechanism, which is meaningful. However, it doesn't state behavior on zero matches, the number of results returned, whether results are ranked, or whether the query is case-insensitive — gaps an agent would want before invoking.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and mechanism. Compact and readable, with no filler. The phrase 'context facts and decisions' is slightly under-specified but the sentence earns its length.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, so the description is close to adequate. However, the lack of any output/return description and no mention of fallback behavior when memory is empty leaves a small but real gap. For the complexity level, it is mostly complete but not fully.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is described as 'Search query to match against stored memories'. The description's 'keyword matching' phrase does reinforce the parameter's purpose, which aligns with what the schema already conveys, so the description adds marginal but not essential value. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a clear verb ('Recall') and resource ('context facts and decisions'), and the 'keyword matching' mechanism distinguishes it from a semantic or vector-based search. The sibling 'semantic_memorize' implies this is the read counterpart, and 'recall' clearly signals the retrieval role. Slightly vague about what kind of 'context facts and decisions' are stored, but the purpose is recognizable.

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?

Usage is implied — if you need previously stored context, call this tool — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of the write counterpart 'semantic_memorize', and no note about query phrasing or limits. The keyword-matching hint gives some direction, but the agent must infer when this is the right choice versus other sibling tools.

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