team_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions output fields (author, recency, severity) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not guaranteed.

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, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words, and ends with a clear use case. Perfectly sized for quick understanding.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns (author, recency, severity). It covers key use cases and scope but lacks detail on pagination or default behavior for limit. Overall sufficient for a simple recall 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%, baseline 3. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining how parameters are used (e.g., 'find who knows about a topic' for topic, 'showing who learned what' links to author). It also mentions output fields not in 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 recalls lessons from a shared team brain, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like global_recall or smart_recall by focusing on a specific instance_id for team learning.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use this to onboard new team members or find who knows about a topic.' It also explains it works on any shared instance, but does not compare with alternative recall tools or mention when not to use.

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