kb_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked, that global knowledge is always included, and mentions the verbose parameter for full content. However, it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only 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 four sentences long, with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then provides actionable usage tips. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core usage pattern (scoping, global, batching). It could mention the return format more explicitly, but for a search tool with ranked results, it is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the scoping rule and batching recommendation ('batch all questions in one call'). This helps the agent use parameters effectively.

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 specific verbs ('Search across') and clearly identifies the resource ('indexed sessions, stored knowledge, and session summaries'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kb_store, kb_index, etc., which focus on writing or maintenance rather than 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 provides clear guidance on when to use scoped vs. global search ('always pass your current working directory as `project` for best results', 'Set `global: true` to search across all projects'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient.

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