lesson_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes the side effect 'Updates the last_recalled timestamp on matched lessons' and clarifies that decay is driven by last_reinforced, not last_recalled. This is critical because the tool name suggests a read-only search but it mutates state.

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?

Four concise sentences cover purpose, filtering, side effects, ranking, and usage context without filler. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and each subsequent sentence adds meaningful detail.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough to guide correct invocation: it explains what is searched, which results are returned, how confidence filtering behaves, what side effect occurs, and when to call the tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by specifying that query searches across 'content, context, and tags' and that results are ranked by confidence score descending. This supplements the schema's minimal parameter descriptions with behavioral context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search active lessons by keyword across content, context, and tags.' It further differentiates itself from sibling tools by clarifying that only lessons above min_confidence are returned and lower-confidence lessons are archived/hidden.

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?

Provides clear invocation context: 'Call at session start to surface relevant patterns before beginning work on a known problem area.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the timing and purpose are clearly stated.

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