synapse_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a newline-separated list of facts with timestamps, and that an empty result means no facts were found, which covers normal behavior. It does not mention error cases, but the read-only nature is implied by 'look up' and 'returns.'

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 tightly organized into Args and Returns sections with no filler. Every sentence adds relevant detail about invocation or output.

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 description is sufficient to call the tool correctly for common cases: all parameters, defaults, and output format are specified. It lacks examples or error behavior, but those are not essential for this simple lookup tool.

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?

All three parameters are explicitly explained in the docstring: entity matches subject/object depending on direction, as_of is an ISO datetime filtering temporal validity, and direction defines outgoing/incoming/both with its default. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 looks up time-stamped facts about an entity, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like query_knowledge or synapse_timeline by focusing on entity-specific temporal facts, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as query_knowledge, synapse_timeline, or explore_connections. The description explains mechanics but not use cases or when not to use it.

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