hippocampus_search_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'pattern completion' as the underlying mechanism, which is extra context beyond the schema, but doesn't disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, response format, or any caveats. The description is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and lists supported filter categories efficiently. No redundant words.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is relatively brief. It doesn't explain what 'pattern completion' means, how results are ordered, or any constraints beyond parameter schema. It covers the basics but lacks deeper context for complex usage.

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 groups filters (semantic, temporal, participant, effect) which mirrors the schema but doesn't add new meaning or syntax details. It provides minimal added value over the schema.

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 'Retrieve events using pattern completion' with the specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'events'. It distinguishes from sibling write tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from recall_memory or query_graph, though the name strongly implies event-specific searching.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving events with various filters, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like recall_memory or query_graph. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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