corpus_recall

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add context. It does so by disclosing the empty-result condition ('returns nothing unless a corpus has been populated') and the separate-corpus scope, both of which are useful traits not visible in the annotations or schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the scoping caveat immediately after. No filler, though the second sentence's second clause slightly overlaps the first sentence's 'loaded separately from memory' idea.

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, no-output-schema read tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the key precondition and scope boundary. The only real gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance relative to recall/semantic_recall.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details for query, limit, or corpus beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: semantic search over a supplementary knowledge corpus. It also explicitly rules out session memory, which helps separate it from the recall/semantic_recall siblings, but it never names those siblings directly.

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?

It gives a precondition (a corpus must have been populated) and implicitly signals usage via the contrast with session memory, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over recall, semantic_recall, or query_layer.

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