recall

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses result ordering ('按相关度从高到低排序') and authorization requirements ('需要 note.recall.read scope'). However, lacks explicit safety declaration (read-only vs destructive), error behavior, or result structure details that would be expected for a tool without annotation coverage.

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?

Four structured segments: function definition, usage scenarios, result behavior, and auth requirements. Zero redundancy, well front-loaded with colons and quotes creating clear visual structure. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose, scope constraints, and sorting behavior. Minor gap in not describing the return structure (e.g., whether it returns note IDs, titles, or content snippets), but sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear Chinese descriptions ('搜索关键词或语义描述', '返回数量，默认 3，最大 10'). Description does not add param semantics beyond schema, which is appropriate given the schema is comprehensive; baseline 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?

Description explicitly states '全局语义搜索：在所有笔记中进行语义召回' (global semantic search/retrieval across all notes), providing specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling recall_knowledge (which targets knowledge bases) and list_notes (likely exact filtering).

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?

Provides explicit applicable scenarios with quoted examples: '适用场景：「搜一下」「找找我哪些笔记提到了 XX」'. Clearly indicates when to use (semantic search, finding mentions) though could more explicitly contrast with list_notes for exact matching or recall_knowledge for external knowledge.

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