Retrieve the closest retained immune-memory crystal for a threat pattern to reuse successful defensive outcomes.
Recall the closest retained immune-memory crystal for a threat pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | ||
| threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read/retrieval operation and the notion of 'closest', but it does not mention what happens when no crystal matches, whether the operation has side effects, what output is returned, or any thresholds/edge cases in behavior.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler, and the core action and object are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity borders on underspecification in other dimensions.
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 has a nested required pattern object with seven subfields, an optional threshold, no output schema, and no annotations. A one-sentence description is far too thin for an agent to construct valid input, understand threshold effects, or interpret the returned crystal.
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%, and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. It only calls the main parameter a 'threat pattern', which is already implied by the schema, and it says nothing about the optional 'threshold' parameter or the required nested fields. The description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Recall') and names the resource ('closest retained immune-memory crystal') for a 'threat pattern', making the core operation and target understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like immune_crystallize or immune_discover, but the memory-recall framing is distinct enough to avoid major confusion.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the alternatives, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The one-line description leaves usage entirely to inference, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between immune_recall, immune_discover, and immune_synthesize.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.