reconstruct

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It details the return payload (memory state plus timestamped, hashed event log) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has performance implications.

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 two sentences, leading with the main purpose and then giving use cases. There is no filler and it is well front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detail on the exact output structure, pagination, error handling, or edge cases such as future dates or missing data. For a complex reconstruction operation, more context would be expected.

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 schema covers only 50% of parameters (query has a description, as_of_iso does not). The description clarifies that as_of_iso specifies the point in time for which memories were valid ('valid at as_of'), partially compensating for the schema gap, but it does not add meaning to the query parameter beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'reconstruct' and clearly identifies the scope as 'complete memory state and full audit event trail at a past point in time'. It differentiates from siblings like recall_at by emphasizing the inclusion of the hashed event log.

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?

It explicitly states use cases: 'Use for regulatory audit submissions and trade reconstruction.' This provides clear context, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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