mcp_engram_query_pure

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and exceeds it by disclosing the query mechanism (cosine K-NN over hot blocks/BVH), the return format (ranked concepts + scores + CRS), and the optional timing trailer with field names. It also states the exclusion of keyword/file-path fallback, giving 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?

Description is dense but every sentence adds unique value; however, the 'RSI Cycle 55:' prefix is an internal version detail that adds noise for a generic agent. Overall it is front-loaded and structured well.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned (ranked concepts, scores, CRS) and the timing trailer details. Combined with rich parameter and usage guidance, there are no critical gaps for invocation.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the description adds meaning for include_timing (structured trailer fields and env var) and emphasizes 'Intent only' as the operative semantic. It does not deeply elaborate on k, but the schema fully handles that.

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 'Pure geometric K-NN discovery' and details the pipeline from natural language intent to phase vector to cosine K-NN, clearly identifying the operation and scope. It explicitly contrasts itself with the hybrid fallback and names sibling tools it replaces (list_concepts + search_by_relation), making it distinctive.

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?

Provides explicit use contexts: 'fast anchor discovery in optimized wake-up' and 'Fast path for hot ritual rehydrate', plus named alternatives it replaces. The phrase 'Intent only' and 'no keyword/file-path hybrid fallback' implies when not to use it, completing the guidance.

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