solucortex_recall

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns only approved/active memories, ranks by semantic similarity plus importance, and warns about OpenAI embeddings being slower with a 20 req/min limit. This gives the agent important expectations about latency and throttling without needing to discover it at runtime.

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 compact: one sentence states the action and endpoint, one sentence gives usage timing and return value, and one sentence notes performance characteristics. Every sentence adds meaningful information and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operating context: when to call it, what it returns, how results are ranked, and its performance constraints. No critical missing information prevents an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (query and project_id) with clear descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Build living context for a task') and an endpoint ('POST /context/build'), and explains it returns approved, active memories ranked by similarity and importance. This is not a tautology and conveys the tool's read-oriented purpose, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like solucortex_search.

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 gives a clear timing directive: 'Call this at the START of a task, before touching code.' It establishes the intended context of use effectively, but it does not provide explicit exclusion criteria or name alternatives for cases where this tool would not be appropriate.

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