tcai_memory_retrieve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the algorithmic basis (blended cosine similarity, PAD congruence, salience), but does not mention whether the operation has side effects, what the return format is, or how the blending weights are determined. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and method without unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a high-level method but lacks return value expectations, usage preconditions, or guidance on parameter combinations. It is minimally sufficient for understanding the tool's existence but not for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 80% (topK lacks description). The description adds meaning to the PAD parameters by referencing 'PAD congruence', and mentions 'embedding' indirectly via cosine similarity. It does not elaborate on topK or embedding behavior beyond the schema's description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'memories' and specifies the retrieval method (blended cosine similarity, PAD congruence, salience). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcai_memory_store, which handles storing memories.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are no references to other tools or exclusion criteria. The usage is implied by the tool's name and description (when you need to retrieve memories), but no clear guidelines are provided.

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