solucortex_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds net-new value by explaining that only approved/active memories are returned, that results are ranked, and that the tool relies on slower OpenAI embeddings with a 20 req/min rate limit. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs beyond annotation flags.

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?

Three compact sentences cover the operation, when to use it, what it returns, and its performance caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the key usage instruction is front-loaded.

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 read-only retrieval tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers purpose, timing, return behavior, and rate limiting. It would be fully complete with explicit routing to sibling tools for one-off searches or alternative retrieval cases.

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%, and the schema already explains the query and project_id parameters well. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the general semantic retrieval concept, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete endpoint (`POST /context/build`) and states it returns approved, active memories ranked by semantic similarity and importance. It clearly identifies the tool's job, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like `solucortex_search`.

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 gives a strong, explicit trigger condition: call this at the START of a task, before touching code. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools for other retrieval needs.

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