hybrid_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates that the operation is a non-mutating search and reveals the hybrid retrieval behavior, which is useful. It does not describe result merging, ordering, or safety guarantees beyond the 'search' wording, so transparency is adequate but not deep.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Search memories') and immediately states the distinguishing hybrid behavior.

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 rich parameter schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation, but there is no explicit usage guidance, no mention of return shape, and no output schema to compensate. For a search tool this is acceptable, but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description's 'vector and keyword' framing adds helpful context for the alpha parameter, but it does not add significant meaning for limit, project, namespace, or min_similarity beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific operation ('Search memories') and a distinguishing mechanism ('combined vector and keyword (full-text) search'). This clearly separates hybrid_recall from sibling recall and other memory tools, so an agent can infer what makes this tool different.

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 implies when to use hybrid_recall — when both semantic vector matching and keyword/full-text matching are desired — but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is present by implication rather than direct routing.

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