tcai_memory_retrieve

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the scoring criteria but does not explain what happens when no memories match, whether the operation is read-only, the format of returned data, or what 'blended' and 'salience' mean. 'Retrieve' implies read-only, but explicit side-effect disclosure is absent.

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, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant or filler words. It is appropriately concise for a retrieval operation.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention return values, default behavior for missing parameters (only embedding has a documented default in schema), or how topK bounds results. This is insufficient for a retrieval tool where callers need to know what to expect back.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by linking PAD congruence to the arousal/valence/dominance parameters, but topK remains undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' with resource 'memories' and explicitly names the retrieval criteria: 'blended cosine similarity, PAD congruence and salience'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcai_memory_store (store) and wm_* (working memory) 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several memory-related tools (tcai_memory_store, wm_encode, wm_recall, etc.), but the description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to other retrieval mechanisms.

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