recall_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that matching is fuzzy and within specific fields (subject, topic, note), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention return format or any read-only guarantees, though the search nature is evident.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema or annotations, so the description must convey enough. It lacks explicit information about return values or how studentId scopes the search, and does not mention any side effects. While the purpose is clear, the description could be more complete for an AI agent deciding 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by explaining the fuzzy match targets (subject, topic, note), going beyond the schema's brief 'Keyword or vague phrase' description. It does not add much for 'studentId' but the schema already describes it.

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 specific action ('Search previously logged topics') and resource scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like log_topic (which logs) and get_review_due (which retrieves due topics). It also specifies the matching mechanism (fuzzy match) adding precision.

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 usage when needing to find previously logged topics via keyword or vague query, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks the explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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