td_knowledge_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'Returns summaries (no bodies)' and the full-text search behavior (slower, reads files) are valuable extra context. No contradictions.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first sentence defines action and output, second provides usage guidance with sibling differentiation, third clarifies the distinction from memory tools. No redundant information; every sentence carries weight.

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?

With input schema covering parameters, output schema present, and annotations provided, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, output, usage context, and relationship to siblings. No missing information for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining what is searched (name/description/tags/notes) and the trade-off of full_text parameter (slower, reads files). This extra clarification justifies a 4.

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 'Search the free-form markdown knowledge store' and specifies 'Returns summaries (no bodies).' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools: 'Use td_knowledge_get afterward to fetch a specific entry's body' and differentiates from td_memory_recall for structured content.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use for prose reference content — notes, essays, prose-with-math saved via td_knowledge_save.' Also states when not to use it: 'Prefer td_memory_recall when you want the structured, replayable technique-recipe library.' Provides clear direction to use td_knowledge_get for fetching entry body.

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