recall_turn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (question, answer, tool calls with diffs) and that session IDs can be prefixes, which is helpful. But it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, or what happens on invalid input, leaving key behavioral traits implicit.

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, densely packed sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the tool's output ('One turn in full') and then clarifies the parameters, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the return values and how to source the turn number. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., missing session or turn) and does not state read-only status, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'session' can be a prefix and that 'turn' is a number obtained from why_file, which is useful. However, it does not explain the format of session (e.g., string pattern) or turn (e.g., integer range), so semantics remain partially 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 states a specific resource ('One turn in full') and enumerates its contents (question, answer, tool calls with diffs), making the tool's function clear. It references the sibling 'why_file' for turn numbers, but does not explicitly contrast itself with 'find' or 'why_check', so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied: the turn number is 'as shown by why_file', suggesting a workflow where why_file is consulted first. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are alternatives like 'find' or 'why_check' named.

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