m8811_recall_list

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

Discloses a significant behavioral trait – the instrument has no read-back for this command, so the result cannot be verified. This goes beyond the annotations, which are all false and provide no safety clues. The explicit confirmation warning also adds cautionary context.

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?

One efficient sentence with a semicolon, front-loading the core action and appending a necessary caution. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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, return values are covered. However, the description plus schema still leave the 'area' parameter ambiguous. The tool is relatively simple but cryptic, lacking some instrumental context that would make it fully self-contained.

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%, and the description only hints at the confirm_recall parameter via 'explicit confirmation'. The 'area' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a gap. The description partially compensates but not sufficiently for low 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?

States 'Load stored LIST data' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like m8811_configure_list or m8811_set_list_step by focusing on recall/loading, and the caution about explicit confirmation adds unique scope.

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?

Provides a clear condition ('only after explicit confirmation') and a reason ('manual has no read-back'), giving the agent when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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