recall_project_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a structured summary with git history, linked episodes, and conversation segments, and that project name uses fuzzy matching. It lacks details on permissions or error behavior, but for a read operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 concise, front-loads the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the tool's composite nature, fuzzy matching, and parameters well. It could be slightly more explicit about the unresolved issues part, but overall complete for a status retrieval 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 coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are already informative. The description reiterates the purpose of parameters (e.g., max_commits, max_episodes) but does not add significant new semantic value beyond the 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 returns the current status of a project including where left off, recent commits, unresolved issues, and conversation context. It specifies the resource (project) and action (get status), and distinguishes itself from more specific sibling tools by offering a composite overview.

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?

Explicitly provides example queries for when to use the tool: 'pick up where we left off on X', 'what's the status of X', 'where did we end on X'. This gives clear guidance on appropriate use cases versus alternatives.

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