knowmind_recall_at_time

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral context they cannot: review_flags on OKF pages (stale/superseded judged against as_of), the kein_belastbarer_treffer sentinel meaning, and the 'read scope suffices' auth note. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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 core purpose and routing rule in the first two sentences with no wasted framing. The back half (review_flags, kein_belastbarer_treffer, 'unless they clearly answer the question, say so') is dense and the final clause is slightly ambiguous, costing a point.

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 carries the burden of explaining notable return semantics, and it does so for review_flags and the kein_belastbarer_treffer sentinel. The bounded k and default-to-now as_of are covered by the schema, so an agent has what it needs; only ordering/pagination of results is unspecified.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining what as_of actually controls - the valid_from/valid_to validity window and how review_flags are evaluated against it - which the schema's 'ISO-8601 timestamp to evaluate validity at' does not spell out.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Time-travel recall: return only memories that were valid at a given instant') and states the exact validity predicate (valid_from <= as_of <= valid_to, or still open). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling knowmind_recall, so an agent can route without opening either 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 selection rule: 'Use instead of knowmind_recall when the point in time matters; otherwise use knowmind_recall for the current truth.' Names the alternative and the condition that picks it, leaving nothing to inference.

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