proximo_recall

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden, and it succeeds thoroughly: it declares read-only, warns that data freshness is bounded by as_of/age_seconds, qualifies not_seen_since as a fact rather than proof of absence, and limits journal output to findings summaries. It even discloses memory is derived/rebuildable and opt-out is possible via PROXIMO_MEMORY=0.

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 dense and long, but every sentence contributes essential context: read-only caveat, source and freshness, diff semantics, journal constraints, configuration, and live alternatives. It is structured as a single flowing paragraph rather than sections, but remains appropriately front-loaded with the key warning and avoids unnecessary filler.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return structures, and it already covers source provenance, staleness, diff semantics, journal behavior, configuration, and live alternatives. For a tool of this complexity, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable semantics beyond the field definitions: trusting guest_summary for guest-count questions, interpreting not_seen_since as a fact not a disappearance claim, and clarifying journal entries are digests only. These enrichments justify a 4.

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 opens with 'READ-ONLY: the estate map from local Tier-1 memory' immediately identifying the action and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from live PVE reads by naming pve_list_guests / pve_cluster_resources. It also enumerates the concrete return artifacts (counts, entity rows, optional journal digests), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool ('estate map from local Tier-1 memory') and when not to ('NOT a live PVE read'), even naming the exact live alternatives: pve_list_guests / pve_cluster_resources. It further clarifies how optional parameters modify usage, such as `since` for diffs and `journal` for diagnosis digests.

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