why_recalled

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it is deterministic and performs no LLM rationalization, which is valuable for an agent deciding between an explanation tool and a generative one. It also previews the response channels. However, with no annotations present, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe behavior when an `id` is not found, so it does not fully carry the behavioral burden.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose question is front-loaded, the output shape follows immediately, and the deterministic caveat is delivered in a single punchy clause.

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 two-parameter explainability tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation knowledge: input semantics and the shape of the returned explanation. It could add edge-case behavior for unknown `id` or empty results, but it is complete enough for correct selection and basic invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of meaning for the parameters. It explains that `query` is the memory query being explained and `id` switches the result from top hits to a specific item. It falls slightly short of clarifying that `query` is still required when `id` is supplied, but it gives both parameters real semantic content.

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 opens with 'EXPLAINABILITY' and poses a specific question: why did (or didn't) a memory surface for `query`. It clearly identifies the tool as a recall explainer and states what it returns, a per-channel breakdown of relevance/value/provenance, which distinguishes it from sibling recall and provenance tools by role even though no sibling is named.

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 wording 'why did (or didn't) a memory surface' gives an explicit context for use: whenever an agent needs an explanation of recall behavior rather than the recall results themselves. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route an agent to this tool for explainability.

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