recall_recognition_seal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that omitting seal_id returns the latest seal for the session. No contradictions or missing disclosures of side effects.

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 one sentence and efficient, but contains the word 'Free' which is ambiguous and adds little value. It could be structured more clearly without this extraneous term.

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 and five parameters, the description adequately states the main function and special case. However, it does not explain what a recognition seal is, its return format, or any prerequisites. Sibling tools provide context but description could be more complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which already describes all five parameters adequately.

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 'Recall' and resource 'recognition seal', and explains the behavior of retrieving by seal_id or latest for session. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_recognition_seals, but the special case for latest seal implies distinction.

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 implies usage: recall a specific seal or the latest for a session. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, but the context is implied.

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