sage_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Search' and the context 'before answering questions' strongly imply a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which are less critical for a search 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second gives usage guidance. No fluff.

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?

While the description covers purpose and usage, it lacks details about parameter defaults (except top_k's default in schema), parameter interactions, behavior when optional parameters are omitted, and the return format (no output schema). For a tool with 4 parameters, more context would be helpful.

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 covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'query' is a 'Natural language search query'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description does not need to add much; it only provides minimal extra context. Thus, score is baseline 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search memories by semantic similarity.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('memories'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like sage_remember (store) and sage_forget (delete) by focusing on retrieval.

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 advises using the tool 'before answering questions' to find relevant past knowledge, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though sibling tool names are available.

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