recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses determinism, no LLM call, multi-hop link traversal, token efficiency, and consistent results. It does not mention failure behavior or side effects, but these are less critical for a read-style recall tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral differentiator, and call-time guidance. The key action and resource are front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, it explains the result concept ('returns the exact notes') and why it is preferable. It could go deeper on output structure or edge cases, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema fully documents query, as_of, top_k, and show_superseded. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond framing 'query' as a question/topic; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'recall the note-chain' from the user's WikiMoth memory, with a clear multi-hop traversal mechanism. It clearly differentiates from sibling list/supersede tools by being a retrieval operation.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before answering anything that might live in the user's notes, memory, or past sessions.' It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the trigger context is clear and actionable.

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