Gated Recall (abstains when unsure)

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

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations, including returning answer/verify/abstain, a context_block with sectioned briefing, a policy_applied flag, and memory space routing. It also notes that it surfaces policy even when a bare query would abstain, all consistent with readOnlyHint.

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 front-loaded with critical guidance and is informative, but it is somewhat verbose with repetition (e.g., emphasizing policy multiple times). It earns its place but could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 output schema exists, the description covers return types (answer/verify/abstain, context_block with briefing) and explains the space parameter and fallback with recall_verified. It is fairly complete, though more explicit output format details could help, but output schema likely covers that.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, the description adds context for the `space` parameter (routing) and implies usage of `k` and `as_of`. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema, slightly elevating it above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a gated recall that abstains when unsure, specifically for grounding answers and retrieving company policy. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_recall and search by emphasizing that only recall_gated returns policy with a sectioned briefing.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this FIRST', 'ALWAYS prefer this tool for any governance, policy, compliance...', and the alternative recall_verified if the tool abstains. It clearly contrasts with siblings that do not carry the policy briefing.

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