recall_knowledge

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses result sorting (by relevance) and required permission scope (note.topic.recall.read). However, it lacks disclosure of safety characteristics (implied read-only but not stated), error handling, or rate limits.

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 information-dense segments: operation definition, scope constraint, usage scenario, and result/permission characteristics. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy or tautology despite being in Chinese.

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?

Appropriate for a search tool: explains return behavior (relevance sorting) and authorization requirements despite lacking output schema. With 100% schema coverage and clear scope disclosure, it is complete enough for invocation, though error scenarios could be mentioned.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'within specified knowledge base' (topic_id) and 'search' (query) but does not add syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema already documents. The example usage pattern provides contextual glue between parameters.

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?

Specific verb 'semantic search/recall' with resource 'knowledge base' and scope constraint 'within specified knowledge base'. The term '知识库' (knowledge base) clearly distinguishes this from the sibling generic 'recall' tool.

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 scenario pattern 'Search for XX in my XX knowledge base' and mentions required scope. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling 'recall' tool as an alternative or define when NOT to use this tool.

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