recall_lessons

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful constraints ('at most three', 'fresh, active, scoped') but does not explain what these terms mean operationally or how the tool behaves when no lessons match. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. However, given the tool's 8 parameters and 5 required fields, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though it is still appropriately concise.

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 having an output schema and annotations, the description omits crucial context: what the fingerprints are used for, what 'scoped' means, and when in the tuning workflow this tool should be invoked. For a tool with many required parameters, this is incomplete.

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?

The description makes no reference to any of the 8 parameters. Schema coverage is only 63%, with tags, database_name, and query_fingerprint lacking descriptions. The description does not compensate for these gaps, leaving those parameters under-specified.

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 retrieves lessons with specific constraints ('at most three fresh, active, scoped'). It uses a specific verb ('Recall') and resource ('lessons'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that record or propose lessons, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_learning_candidates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like propose_lesson or list_learning_candidates. The description does not mention any workflow context, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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