mycelium_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that nothing is destroyed ('only set down'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose potential costs, idempotency, or failure modes, leaving some gaps for a tool that recalls data.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a short note. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds behavioral context. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage guidance, and a behavioral trait. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema presumably handles that. The description is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The input schema already covers the 'urn' parameter with a basic description. The tool description adds context ('bring back into working memory'), enriching the schema's meaning and helping the agent understand the parameter's role in the recall process.

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 the tool brings back pruned items ('Bring something back that was pruned'), which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's cheaper than re-foraging or re-zooming, though the metaphor 'pruned' may be slightly ambiguous for newcomers.

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 advises using this tool over hoarding context and contrasts it with re-foraging or re-zooming, providing explicit usage guidance. It doesn't list exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide when to invoke it.

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