recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the recall modes, thresholding, and result counts, and mentions that it returns confidence levels and hallucination-prevention guidance. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss potential side effects, though the nature of a search tool makes this largely clear.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear summary of purpose followed by bullet-pointed mode details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and modes but does not explain advanced features like include_related and expand_relations, which are important for a tool with 7 parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the description could be more complete regarding optimal parameter combinations or knowledge graph integration.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The description repeats mode definitions already present in the schema and does not elaborate on parameters like include_related or expand_relations. The baseline score is appropriate given high coverage.

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 performs 'semantic search with confidence gating and composite ranking,' and details three modes with specific thresholds and result counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall_by_tag and recall_with_fallback by focusing on semantic similarity rather than tag-based or fallback approaches.

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 explains the three modes and their use cases (precision, balanced, exploratory) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recall_by_tag or recall_with_fallback. The guidance is implicit through the mode descriptions, but lacks explicit directives on appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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