n2_mimir_recall

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral load, and it does disclose the key trait: this is a read-only path with 'no learning mutations,' which is valuable given the write siblings. However, it says nothing about result volume, truncation, pagination, whether query is fuzzy or exact, or permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resources, with the read-only constraint appended where it matters most. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is thin. The agent still doesn't know what the query parameter does or what shape the returned reports and lessons take, which affects how it should call and consume the result.

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 0% and all three parameters are bare typed fields, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'project' and 'agent' together define the recall scope, but 'query' — the most semantically ambiguous parameter — is never explained (matching? full-text? optional filter?).

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and specific resources ('historical reports and reviewed lessons') with a scope constraint ('for one project and agent'). It is distinguishable from write/study siblings like n2_brain_write and n2_mimir_study_add, but it doesn't distinguish itself from the closely related n2_mimir_lessons or n2_brain_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?

The scope phrase 'for one project and agent' plus 'no learning mutations' implies this is the read path for reviewing prior work, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent facing n2_mimir_lessons, n2_brain_read, and n2_context_search gets no routing signal.

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