recover_assessment_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'performs no write' reinforces the safety profile but adds little new behavioral context; it does not mention error behavior, prerequisites, or what happens on revision mismatch. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the purpose and the safety characteristic without filler. Every clause contributes value, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 output schema and annotations reduce the burden for return values and side effects, but 3 required parameters have no semantic explanation in either the schema or description. The meaning of 'uncertain save' is not defined, and there is no guidance for choosing this over read_assessment_workspace, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only weakly hints that 'revision' relates to expected_revision. The parameters dossier, run_ref, and selected_offer_ref remain entirely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action: read back a save and verify its exact content and revision, and it explicitly notes the tool performs no write. It is specific enough to distinguish from save_assessment_workspace, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling read_assessment_workspace, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'uncertain save' implies a specific triggering condition, and 'verify exact content and revision' clarifies the intent. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over read_assessment_workspace, nor does it provide any exclusions or explicit alternative guidance.

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