engrim_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses hybrid keyword + semantic ranking behavior and implies a read-only operation by saying 'Search... and recall.' It does not mention any side effects, performance constraints, or output format, which is a gap, but the ranking behavior adds meaningful detail.

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?

Two compact sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and method, and the second adds contextual usage guidance. Key information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 tool is moderately complex (6 parameters, mostly optional) and has no output schema. The description explains when to use it and what it recalls, but does not describe the return structure or ordering. Given the absence of an output schema, a small note on return format would enrich complete picture, though it is adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add extra beyond what the schema provides (max records, filtering by tag/type, project, include_stale). 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 clearly identifies the tool's function as searching the project's engrim memory with hybrid keyword + semantic ranking, and specifies the resource ('engrim memory'). It distinguishes this retrieval action from likely sibling tools (add, review, context) by stating it recalls prior decisions, facts, feedback, and state.

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 explicitly says 'Use before non-trivial work to recall prior decisions...', giving a clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the usage window is well-defined.

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