smart_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the fallback behavior to remember_context keys and shows a return example, which is valuable. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics, result cardinality, or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 three sentences: the main purpose, a contrast with exact matching, a concrete example, and a fallback note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or vague filler. The information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return semantics. It gives one example ('returns cached auth architecture summary') but doesn't specify whether the return is a single result, a list, or how results are structured. For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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%, and the schema provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters (e.g., threshold, author, context_files). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the example query, which doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax or interactions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 'Semantically search cached context using natural language' and provides a concrete example ('how does authentication work' → returns cached auth architecture summary). It explicitly contrasts with exact key matching, distinguishing it from sibling cache retrieval tools.

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 phrase 'Instead of exact key matching' gives clear context on when to use this tool versus exact lookup alternatives. The fallback note ('Falls back to remember_context keys') adds useful behavioral context, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like semantic_search or recall_context for direct comparison.

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