recall_transcript_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Hydrate' without explaining whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid ranges, whether there are performance or memory implications, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence contributes meaning: the first states the operational scope, the second provides the motivating use case. It is well-structured and free of fluff, though slightly vague.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide more contextual information about return values, error handling, and when to choose this tool. The current description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly in all cases, even though the tool itself is relatively simple.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'by line range,' which somewhat clarifies line_start and line_end, but it does not explain session_id, the inclusive/exclusive nature of the range, defaults, or behavior when only one line parameter is provided. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema fields.

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 hydrates a Claude Code session transcript by line range, with a specific use case of tracing facts to their source conversation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_fact, which focus on facts rather than raw transcript retrieval. However, the verb 'hydrate' is somewhat jargon-heavy, and it lacks an explicit contrast with related tools.

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 when to use the tool ('Lets agents trace a fact back to the exact conversation that produced it'), which provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like query_fact or get_audit_log_head, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but inferred rather than explicit.

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