kura_recall

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal important behavior: it retrieves by meaning, follows links, and emphasizes not to fabricate when no result is found. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens with the hops parameter (e.g., how deep the search goes and whether more hops affect latency). It also doesn't specify if the tool is read-only, though recall implies reading. Overall, it gives useful context but leaves some behavioral aspects unmentioned.

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 a single, dense paragraph but contains no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance, then addresses edge cases and parameter use. It is appropriately sized for a tool with multiple interconnected behaviors (meaning-based recall, link-following, empty result handling). It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for handling empty results or parameter variants), but it is efficient and 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity due to link-following and alternate stores, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to handle empty results, and how to use parameters. It does not explicitly describe return format (e.g., whether it returns text or a list of memories), but with no output schema, it could have provided more on that. Missing details on hops behavior and potential limitations are minor gaps. Overall, it is fairly complete for an agent to use it 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters (question, hops, store) with descriptions, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'store' ('reach a different kura') and hints that 'question' should be phrased as a natural question. It also implies the meaning of 'hops' (following [[links]]). It doesn't detail the format or constraints beyond the schema, but it enriches the meaning of each parameter sufficiently.

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: 'Recall from the kura — long-term memory retrieved by MEANING rather than keyword, then following [[links]] between memories.' It differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing meaning-based retrieval over keyword, which distinguishes it from tools like kura_read or kura_list. It also mentions specific use cases, making it easy for an agent to understand what it does.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Call it whenever the question touches past decisions, measurements, people, machines, or anything done before — prefer it over guessing.' It also explains what to do on empty results ('An empty result means it is simply not remembered yet: say so plainly and never fill the gap with invention') and mentions alternatives or related actions ('Pass store to reach a different kura, or call kura_use to switch for the session'). This provides clear guidance on selection and behavior.

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