recall_incident_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the read-only nature ('Read') and the short-circuit behavior that can skip investigation, which are valuable traits. It does not cover edge cases like empty memory, but the presence of an output schema likely covers return structure.

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 with zero wasted words, front-loading the purpose and then providing a clear usage directive. It is an example of efficient, high-value communication.

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?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the strategic context (first call) and the purpose, but does not explicitly address how to format dataset_urn or handle missing memory. The output schema likely compensates for return-value details, so this is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the dataset_urn parameter beyond its name. Since the schema provides no details and the description fails to compensate, the agent is left to infer that dataset_urn identifies the dataset. This adds minimal value over the raw 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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource ('previous nights concluded about this dataset'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like recall_across_lineage. It clearly states what the tool does and the value it provides.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call this FIRST, before walking any lineage') and explains the strategic benefit ('skip the investigation entirely'). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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