knowmind_recall

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it names the retrieval architecture (BM25 + pgvector + knowledge graph), the return shape (top-k chunks with relevance score and source reference), the meaning of every metadata.review_flags value, the kein_belastbarer_treffer signal for 'no answer in corpus', and the auth requirement ('Read scope suffices'). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the deprecation notice and the replacement tool, then the purpose, then the flag semantics — good ordering with no filler sentences. The review_flags enumeration is dense and long, but each clause defines a distinct value that would otherwise be opaque; only mildly over-sized.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (top-k chunks, relevance score, source reference) plus the semantics of embedded flags. Combined with the deprecation timeline and scope note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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 100%, so query/k/hops are already fully documented, including that hops currently has no effect. The description adds no syntax, format, or trade-off guidance beyond the schema (e.g., no guidance on choosing k), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Retrieve relevant knowledge') plus the situations it serves (decisions, preferences, project state, people, deadlines, past conversations). It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings by name (knowmind_recall_memories as successor, knowmind_recall_at_time for point-in-time), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('before answering anything that benefits from prior context'), an explicit when-to-use-the-alternative ('use knowmind_recall_at_time when you need what was valid at a past point in time'), and a deprecation route to the replacement tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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