memory_recall_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds key behavioral traits: hybrid search (keywords + semantic) and neural reranking, which go beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear Arg list format with no extraneous information. Every sentence is justified.

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?

With an output schema present (not detailed here), return values need no explanation. The description adequately covers purpose, scope, and parameters. Minor gap: no explicit mention of how 'current project' is determined, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, but the description meaningfully explains each parameter: 'query' works with keywords and semantic concepts, 'category' is optional, 'limit' has default 5 and max 50. This adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 defines the tool's purpose: 'Hybrid search in CURRENT project only with neural reranking.' This includes a specific verb (search), resource (project), and scope (current project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'memory_recall' (likely global) and others.

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 states the tool works in 'CURRENT project only,' guiding when to use it (within project context). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling list implies 'memory_recall' for global search. Clear context is provided.

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