cloud_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses pagination behavior (paged at 25, reports the true total and the exact next-page call), the bounded-read rationale, and the multi-cloud `cloud` requirement. It does not state auth/permission needs or confirm read-only semantics explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the core verb, and each sentence adds routing or behavioral value (search vs list, pull, pagination, multi-cloud). Slightly wordy with the extended pagination and vault commentary, but nothing is pure 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, covering pagination size, true total, and the next-page call. Read-only/permission behavior is left implicit, a minor gap for a bounded read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds little beyond it — it restates the query-omit-to-list behavior and the cloud-required rule, which the schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb (search or list) plus resource (shared cloud nodes for an initiative), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` as 'the second tier your local search cannot reach.' An agent can tell it apart from local recall/search without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('reach for this whenever a team initiative's local answer looks complete'), the query-vs-list condition ('pass query... omit it to list everything'), the follow-up alternative (`pull <id>`), and the multi-cloud prerequisite for `cloud`. Nothing is left to inference.

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