Two tools with clear naming (retrieve, recall) and reasonable descriptions (100-150 chars each). Both have documented input schemas with required parameters and type definitions. However, output schemas are completely undocumented, the code shows only input validation, not what the tools return. Parameter descriptions are present but minimal (e.g., 'top_k' lacks range/bounds). No error handling guidance, no recovery patterns, and no indication of how results are structured for downstream tool chaining. The tools appear to be read-only knowledge/memory lookups, but this is not explicitly stated in descriptions. Missing: output schema documentation, parameter constraints (e.g., limit 1-10 for recall), error recovery guidance, and idempotency hints.

• Document output schemas for both tools. Specify: What fields does retrieve() return? (e.g., [{chunk_id, text, source_file, score}]). What does recall() return? (e.g., [{fact_id, content, timestamp, relevance}]). Include field types and whether lists are paginated.
• Add numeric bounds to parameters: 'top_k' (retrieve) → 'Maximum number of chunks (1-100, default 10)'; 'limit' (recall) → 'Maximum results (1-10, default 5)'. State defaults explicitly in descriptions.
• Add error recovery guidance: 'If no results found, try a broader query or check KB is loaded. If KB unavailable, inform user and suggest alternative sources.'
• Explicitly mark tools as read-only and idempotent in descriptions: 'This tool is read-only and safe to retry. It does not modify state.'
• Include tool composition hints: 'Returns source_file for each chunk, cite this in your answer. Returns fact_id for each memory item, use this to reference prior context.'

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry