gnosys_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: query="*" selects by reinforcement/confidence/recency, limit is capped at 15 and defaults from config, aggressive defaults to true, and registered projectRoots span project+user+global. It does not say what the unregistered-root failure looks like or how memory bodies are trimmed in the block, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and example, then alternatives, then parameter behavior, then scope caveats — a sensible ordering. It is dense and slightly run-on in the final two sentences, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a 5-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything the agent needs: output form, wildcard behavior, caps, defaults, project scope, and the hook-duplication caveat.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds value by documenting the special wildcard value query="*" and its ranking semantics, which the schema does not mention. The limit and aggressive defaults largely restate schema text, so it is additive but not fully independent.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Recall relevant memories') and names the exact output shape (a <gnosys-recall> context block for a task) with a concrete example query. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from gnosys_hybrid_search and gnosys_read later, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Names alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'Use gnosys_hybrid_search instead to inspect ranked results or gnosys_read for one complete body.' It also gives explicit projectRoot rules (omit for all projects, run gnosys_init for unregistered roots) and warns that hooks may already inject this context, which is a real when-not-to-call signal.

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