recall_gated

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals detailed behavioral traits: returns a structured briefing with answer/verify/abstain, surfaces policies even when bare query would abstain, includes a policy_applied flag, and describes the context_block content. This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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 an imperative statement and contains rich, useful information. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence contributes value. Could be slightly tighter, but overall well-structured.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return structure, and a key behavioral trait (policy surfacing). It is complete for an agent to effectively select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the 'space' parameter options. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 that the tool is for grounding answers, especially for governance, policy, and compliance questions. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search and memory_recall by noting they do not carry the same briefing, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this FIRST to ground answers; prefer it over built-in/native memory' and 'ALWAYS prefer this tool for any governance, policy, compliance...'. It also contrasts with search/memory_recall, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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