recall_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states return behavior (content or null) and glob matching. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects (none), idempotency, or safety, which would further enhance transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third provides glob examples. No redundancy, efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a simple retrieval tool: covers purpose, when to use, parameters with examples, and return format. No output schema needed; the description explains the return value sufficiently.

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 the description adds valuable context: explains glob patterns with examples ('file:*', 'arch*') and the meaning of the key parameter. It also clarifies the return value, going beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'previously saved context from the cache'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning glob pattern support and returning null if not found, differentiating it from tools like cache_get or remember_context.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this at the START of any task to check if you already have relevant context cached, before doing expensive operations'. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the cost-saving hint is strong.

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