global_recall

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

Discloses read-only nature, no side effects, return format (list of objects with topic, lesson text, severity, tags), and behavior for optional topic parameter (partial match, limit of 50). Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Six sentences, front-loaded with key info, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value—purpose, safety, return format, filtering behavior, and usage guidance.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fully adequate. It covers all behavioral aspects, return fields, and usage constraints. No gaps remain.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains that `topic` performs partial matching and that omitting it returns all lessons (up to 50). The schema already describes both parameters well, so high schema coverage reduces need, but the description still provides valuable context.

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?

Clearly states 'Read-only retrieval of cross-project lessons stored via global_learn' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings `recall_best_solution` and `team_recall`.

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 states when to use ('lessons that apply universally across all projects') and when not to use, with named alternatives for project-specific and org-scoped lessons.

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