Osiris.Recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, side effects, token-budget limits, or permission requirements. The op/scope/budget_tokens parameters suggest server-side selection and token capping, which are not mentioned. The only disclosed trait is that memory is restored/rehydrated, which is minimal.

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?

It is a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The two modes are packed into one clause without explaining how they map to ref versus task_id usage.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no annotations and multiple selection operations (excerpt, grep, range, head, tail, outline, aggregate, jsonl) needs a richer description than one vague sentence. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the operational modes and interactions between ref/op/scope/task_id remain entirely unexplained.

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 schema documents all 9 parameters including the op enum-like values, scope, range, and query. The description only hints at 'ref' and 'task', so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives two modes: 'rehydrate a ref' or 'restores the state/memory of a task', which conveys the general intent of memory/state retrieval. However, 'rehydrate' is jargon and the relationship between the 'ref' path and 'task' path is unclear. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like osiris.observe or osiris.checkpoint.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this versus the other memory tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer that recalling memory is appropriate by reading the schema, not the description.

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