semantic_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the semantic search mechanism and the fact that it matches by description rather than exact name. This goes beyond the minimal annotation baseline, though it doesn't disclose result format or failure 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with trigger conditions, followed by the core functionality and a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a read-only search tool with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete selection and invocation context: it tells the agent when to use it, what it does, and how to order it relative to git log. No critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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%: query has an example, max_results and source_kind have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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: 'Searches memory by meaning using semantic similarity.' It also specifies concrete use cases (what changed last session, recent events, finding by description) and distinguishes from exact-name search and git log, differentiating it from sibling tools like entity_read.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('when the user asks what changed last session...') and a strong guideline: 'Use BEFORE reading git log or commit history for session-level context questions.' This clearly guides the agent on tool selection and ordering relative to alternatives.

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