team_recall

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

The description mentions showing author, recency, and severity, implying read-only behavior. However, with no annotations, it fails to explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or to disclose any side effects. The behavioral traits are implied but not fully 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 relatively short (four sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be more concise by combining redundant statements like 'showing who learned what' and 'Shows author, recency, and severity.' Still, every sentence adds value.

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 output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields (author, recency, severity). It also clarifies the instance scope. However, it lacks details on pagination, default limit, or ordering, which are important for a retrieval tool. The completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that results include author, recency, and severity, and that instance_id refers to a shared team brain instance. This enriches the schema information beyond the parameter 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 it recalls lessons from a shared team brain, showing who learned what. It specifies it works on shared instances (instance_id). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'global_recall' or 'smart_recall', which may have similar purposes.

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 provides use cases: onboarding new team members or finding who knows about a topic. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'smart_recall' for more advanced recall, 'team_learn' for learning). No explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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