recall_transcript_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The term 'hydrate' suggests retrieval, but the description does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, behavior when parameters are invalid, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite the tool having three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain the return format, error handling, or the meaning of omitted optional parameters. An agent would need additional context to use 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 should compensate. While 'by line range' hints at the purpose of line_start and line_end, it does not clarify inclusivity, index base, or default behavior when omitted. The description adds minimal meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool 'hydrates a Claude Code session transcript by line range' – a specific verb and resource. It further explains the purpose: allowing agents to trace facts back to the exact conversation that produced it. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_claude_md (full export) or query_fact (fact lookup).

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 tracing a fact to its original conversation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparisons to siblings or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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