recall_transcript_range

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes a fetch operation ('hydrate') but does not disclose read-only behavior, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral traits are largely implicit.

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 no redundancy. Every word adds value, and the structure clearly separates action from purpose.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and param descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify omitted parameters, output format, or constraints, making it inadequate for a 3-parameter tool.

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 adds no explanations for session_id, line_start, or line_end. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Hydrate') and clearly identifies the resource ('Claude Code session transcript by line range'). The second sentence provides the use case of tracing facts back to conversations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_decision_log.

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 for tracing facts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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