list_recognition_seals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is minimal. It adds that seals are 'durable' and useful for 'proving survival', but does not discuss authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short (one sentence plus 'Free'), front-loading the purpose. However, 'Free' is cryptic and may not be universally understood. Overall, it is concise without wasting words.

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 covers the basic purpose but lacks explanation of the optional parameters and their intended use cases. Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 with enums) and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully utilize all features without reading the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond referencing the session_id context. It does not explain the optional parameters (ritual_strip, response_mode, response_profile) which have enum choices that may require selection guidance.

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 uses a specific verb 'List', identifies the resource 'durable recognition seals for a session', and explains the purpose 'so agents can prove what survived compaction or closure'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recall_recognition_seal' (likely for a single seal) and 'recognition_seal' (likely for creating seals).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies usage after compaction or closure via the stated purpose, but it does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or mention related tools like 'recall_recognition_seal'. The term 'Free' is ambiguous and does not clarify usage context.

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