recall_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses alias resolution and a prerequisite, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, or any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences: first covers purpose, second covers prerequisite and key behavior (alias resolution). Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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 output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, prerequisite, and a behavioral trait. It lacks details on limits, errors, or expected data volume, but is still sufficient for a single-param tool.

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 0% (no description for 'name_or_alias'). The description compensates by defining the parameter as a name or alias of a person/project/decision/concept, and notes alias resolution. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare field name.

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 verb ('Look up everything'), the resource ('your connected cognitive graph'), and the scope ('named person, project, decision, or concept'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall_decisions' by covering broader entity types.

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 explicit context for use: it requires a signed-in account with connected storage. It implies that the tool is for broad entity recall, not for specific sub-types. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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