KIROK_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the merging algorithm (RRF), the effect of the verbose parameter, and default behavior (compact output). It does not disclose auth needs or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-only search tool.

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 and then provides a structured parameter list. It is somewhat lengthy but well-organized. A bit more conciseness could be achieved, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers input behavior and output format. It mentions default output and verbose option. For a search tool with filters, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description's docstring provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters, including default values, formatting hints (ISO 8601), and behavioral notes (verbose saves tokens).

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search and retrieve relevant memories using semantic similarity and keyword matching, merged with Reciprocal Rank Fusion.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it naturally distinguishes from siblings like KIROK_list_memories.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (semantic search with optional filters), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. The context helps infer its suitability.

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