rsi_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses returned categories (prohibitions, items, skill catalog, and decisions by implication) and the required workflow after recall. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or otherwise side-effect-free, which leaves a minor gap for an unannotated tool.

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 English portion is front-loaded and purposeful, covering trigger, outputs, and follow-ups efficiently. However, the full Chinese translation duplicates the same content, which is redundant for an agent and makes the definition longer than necessary.

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 no output schema, the description explains the main return categories and the required downstream workflow, which is the critical context for this orchestration tool. It could be more complete by clarifying how feedback_token is obtained or what the decisions field represents.

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 100%, so the schema already explains role, task, and top_k. The description adds no further parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific trigger and output set: call before coding/adaptation/debugging/design tasks to get prohibitions, related items, and a skill catalog. It names several sibling tools for follow-up, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from rsi_knowledge_search or rsi_explore, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 clearly states when to call (before coding, adaptation, debugging, or design tasks) and gives explicit follow-up rules: use feedback_token with rsi_feedback before wrapping up, and call rsi_conflicts / rsi_knowledge_review immediately if decisions is non-empty. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct comparison to search-oriented alternatives.

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