get_recall_precision

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

The description clearly states the tool is read-only, never recalibrates, and never persists, which are key behavioral traits beyond what annotations would provide (none here). It also details the return values, resolving ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, but it contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'read-back companion'). It is slightly lengthy but each sentence serves a purpose.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides thorough details on return values (beta, precision level, override flag) and behavioral guarantees, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to interpret its usage.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for agent_id. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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?

The description specifies the verb 'read' and the resource 'agent's effective recall precision', directly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_recall_precision' by calling itself the 'read-back companion'.

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 that the tool is for reading the current setting before editing, and that it should be used as a companion to set_recall_precision for UI workflows. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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