recall_index

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing re-indexing behavior: 'Re-indexing a file REPLACES its chunks completely (safe to re-run after edits; a shrunk file leaves no stale chunks behind)'. It also discloses path restrictions and pre-embedding refusals based on RECALL_INDEX_MAX_FILES/MAX_BYTES. These are important behavioral traits that the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint) only hint at, making the transparency robust.

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 clear sections (main purpose, behavior notes, args, returns) and uses bullet points for key behaviors. It is moderately lengthy but every sentence adds value, covering re-indexing safety, path limits, and return format. It is not overly verbose; the length is justified by the need to explain important edge cases.

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 presence of an output schema (returning {files, chunks, message}), the description appropriately mentions the return format. It also covers constraints (path confinement, max files/bytes), re-indexing behavior, and the file pattern for directories. The tool's complexity is modest, and the description fully covers the behavioral and contextual aspects needed for correct 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?

The only parameter 'path' has a minimal schema title without description (schema coverage 0%). The tool description compensates by explicitly explaining: 'path: a file or directory path (**/*.md is indexed for directories)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, clarifying that directories index markdown files recursively. While it doesn't detail file path patterns, it provides essential 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 begins with 'Index a markdown file or folder into the agent's memory so it can be recalled later', which uses a specific verb ('Index') and a clear resource (markdown files/folders). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_search, recall_forget, and recall_stats, which serve different purposes. The scope and intent are immediately 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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to store file/folder content for later recall) and provides practical guidance on re-indexing, path confinement, and size limits. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear. Given the sibling tools are functionally distinct, the usage context is adequately conveyed.

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