recall_gotchas

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

The description discloses that the tool returns gotcha facts with threadId and uses semantic matching. With no annotations, it carries the full burden, and it sufficiently describes the read-only retrieval behavior without contradictions.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose and providing necessary details efficiently.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format, matching behavior, and prerequisites, making it complete for the agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'query' with examples and clarifying 'project' substring matching and 'limit' defaults, enhancing clarity beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it recalls gotchas/pitfalls from past sessions, semantically matched to a query, and distinguishes it from siblings like recall_decisions and search_threads via the verb 'recall gotchas' and the specific use case of avoiding known mistakes.

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 explicitly states when to use ('to avoid repeating a known mistake') and mentions a prerequisite ('requires the user to have distilled some threads'), but does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to all siblings.

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