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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read with no open-world access. The description adds the tiered retrieval structure, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., missing skill/revision) or result shape. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the level taxonomy follows immediately. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description rests on undefined jargon (Level 0/1/2, XMemo) and never clarifies which parameter drives which level, leaving the agent to guess the required inputs for root vs resource recall.

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 nominally 100%, but four of five parameter descriptions are boilerplate ('Input value for the Recall Cloud Skill tool'), so the schema adds little real meaning. The description partially compensates by tying query to Level 0 and revision_id to Level 2 pinning, but leaves slug, skill_id, and resource unexplained.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Recall reusable Cloud Skills, instructions, or sub-resources saved in XMemo'), which is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like recall, recall_context, or read_memory, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

It outlines three retrieval modes (Level 0 discovery by query, Level 1 root recall, Level 2 resource recall with pinned revision_id), which implies when each invocation style applies. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not guidance, so the routing logic is left to inference.

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