recall_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses fail-closed behavior, the no-grants case, and that an unevaluable grant authorizes nothing. It also clearly states that the tool only performs a scoped read, leaving return-shape details to the output schema.

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 dense but tightly organized: definition, fail-closed semantics, design rationale, and capability boundary each get one or two sentences. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information, and no sentence is 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?

For a security-sensitive scoped read, the permission model and its difference from recall are thoroughly explained, and an output schema exists to cover return values. The main gap is undocumented option semantics, but the provided defaults make safe default invocations possible and the connection to recall covers much of the missing parameter behavior.

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 indirectly clarifies agent and query through context. k, full, and snippet_chars receive no behavioral explanation beyond their names and defaults, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 opening phrase 'Recall AS a named agent' identifies a specific verb and resource, and 'same ranking as recall, hard-filtered to what that agent owns or has an active grant for' draws a sharp contrast with the sibling recall tool. The second paragraph reinforces that this is an access-control-scoped read, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains why this is a separate tool rather than an as_agent= parameter on recall, warning that an optional scope can be forgotten and accidentally read the whole store. This gives a clear reason to use recall_as for agent-scoped reads, though it does not explicitly phrase an exclusion like 'use recall for unfiltered reads.'

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