mcp_engram_recall_in_file

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions that it queries 'aabb_min/max bounding box coordinates', hinting at a read-only operation devoid of side effects. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The mention of bounding boxes adds some context but falls short of full transparency.

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 only two sentences, directly stating the purpose and the underlying mechanism. Every word contributes meaning: 'Spatial recall' sets context, the verb phrase is clear, and the second sentence explains the data source. No redundancy or filler—exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns (AST concepts within a line range) and how it works (bounding box queries). However, it could be improved by clarifying the order of results or that the bounding box approach ensures efficient spatial filtering. Still, it provides sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's role among siblings.

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% with descriptions for all parameters (end_line, file_stem, k, start_line) including defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that it finds concepts within a line range. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides no extra value for parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'find all AST concepts defined within a specific line range of a file.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('AST concepts in a file'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_engram_recall_recent by highlighting the spatial/line-range aspect. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other recall tools (e.g., mcp_engram_query_with_momentum, mcp_engram_recall_recent). It does not explain that this is ideal for restricting results within a file's line range, nor does it mention when not to use it. Lack of contextual usage advice diminishes the agent's ability to select the right tool.

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