tcai_memory_retrieve

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the retrieval algorithm but omits important details such as whether the tool is read-only, modifies memory state, requires prior embeddings, or what happens with insufficient matches. The term 'PAD' is domain-specific and not explained.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by separating the method from the core action, but it's still efficient for a retrieval tool.

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 has optional parameters, no output schema, and a potentially complex retrieval mechanism (blended similarity, PAD), the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, range of results, or how parameters interact. An agent might need more context to use it correctly without additional troubleshooting.

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 high (80%: 4 out of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema. For topK, the schema provides min/max constraints but no semantic description; the description misses an opportunity to explain its role. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Retrieve memories' with specific retrieval method ('blended cosine similarity, PAD congruence and salience'). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like tcai_memory_store or wm_encode, providing a precise verb+resource+scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tcai_memory_store for storing, wm_predict for prediction) or when not to use it. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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