chronomem_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits beyond the schema: ranking via 4-Way Reciprocal Rank Fusion and strict packing within a token budget. However, it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor what happens when no facts match, nor how results are ranked or truncated.

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?

A single sentence with the retrieval purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (query relevance, fusion method, token budget) contributes to what the agent needs to know.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the return shape (e.g., a list of facts with scores, ordering) and the safety profile. It covers the input-side constraints well via the schema but leaves the response contract entirely unstated.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including defaults for active_only and token_budget. The description only echoes the query and token-budget concepts and adds no format, syntax, or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (retrieve) and resource (relevant facts for a query), which clearly separates it from write-side siblings like chronomem_remember, chronomem_supersede, and chronomem_forget. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the other read-side siblings (chronomem_timeline, chronomem_contradictions), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching context relevant to a query. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and with five siblings including two other retrieval-flavored tools (timeline, contradictions), the routing decision is left to inference.

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