vmn_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful behavioral details: the search is 'deterministic,' uses 'lexical search,' and operates on a 'local' shard, implying read-only retrieval. It does not describe result format, errors, or edge cases, but for a simple recall tool this is acceptable.

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 one efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource before the method. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with two required, fully documented parameters and no output schema, this is a reasonably complete description. It states the purpose, scope, and search behavior, though it could briefly mention result behavior or when to prefer this over vmn_search.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters at 100%: hash is described as the SHA-256 shard hash from vmn_ingest, and query is the search query. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Recall') and resource ('local Vanguard Memory shard'), and adds the method 'deterministic xLMP lexical search,' so it clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like vmn_search or vmn_list, so some distinguishing context is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as vmn_search or vmn_inspect. The required hash from vmn_ingest is a contextual clue, but the description does not tell an agent how to route between the sibling tools.

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