mesh_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses auto-discovery of the realm via hecate-rag, the semantic nature of retrieval, that it returns chunks with similarity scores and source_path, and that empty results mean 'nothing relevant has been deposited yet, not an error.' This goes beyond basic op semantics and sets clear expectations.

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 solid medium-length paragraph that fronts the core purpose and semantics, then returns, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the semantic-vs-keyword point, return composition, empty-result behavior, and social cue to check shared memory. It is tight enough and well ordered, though slightly longer than the simplest possible version.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return shape: 'chunks, each with a similarity score, source_path, and chunk metadata.' It also covers distributed shared-memory wiring (auto-discovery, RAG service) and the empty-result edge case. Minor details like exact chunk format or host behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 has 100% coverage for host, top_k, and query_text. The description adds real semantic meaning to query_text by emphasizing natural language and semantic retrieval, and clarifies the overall behavior (auto-discovery, RAG call). It doesn't embellish host or top_k, but the high schema coverage makes that unnecessary, and the added query_text context justifies exceeding the baseline of 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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Query the mesh's shared memory (hecate-rag, a realm-bound RAG service)'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from keyword matching ('semantic retrieval, not keyword match') and describes what it returns, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like mesh_find_records or mesh_remember.

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?

It provides actionable usage guidance: 'Not automatic -- call this deliberately when you actually want to check shared memory, e.g. early in a session working on a repo others may have touched.' This covers when-to-use, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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