recall_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral burden. It discloses semantic search and ranking, but does not mention read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. 'Anchors' are not defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with two sentences: one for purpose and one for parameter explanation. No redundant words. However, it lacks parameter details which would improve structure without adding much length.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and one parameter well. However, missing explanations for 'query' and 'k' make it incomplete. The output schema existence partially mitigates need for return value details.

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%, so description must add meaning. Only scope_cwd is explained in detail; query and k parameters have no semantic description. k likely controls number of results but is not stated. This leaves significant gaps for agent usage.

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 uses specific verb 'semantically search' and resource 'past Claude Code sessions', with clear output 'ranked anchors'. It distinguishes from siblings like grep (text search) and recent_sessions (list) by focusing on semantic search across sessions.

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 explains when to use scope_cwd (restrict to project) versus omit (global), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use recall_search over siblings like grep or step. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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