agent-recall

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

The annotations already denote readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds the deprecation status and the fact that the tool injects 'sectionType: agent' as a shorthand behavior, which is beyond what annotations convey. The description is concise and does not contradict the 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 one short, direct sentence followed by a deprecation notice. Every word contributes meaning, and the core alias relationship is immediately clear. There is no waste.

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?

Even though the tool is deprecated, an agent that encounters it may still need to know what the five schema parameters mean in order to use it safely. The description only provides the alias relationship and deprecation, leaving the output schema as absent and the parameter semantics unspecified. Given the complexity of the input and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough.

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 schema has five parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain kbid, depth, kbids, format, or maxTokens. The mention of 'sectionType: agent' provides some contextual meaning about the implicit section scope, but it does not map to or explain the actual input parameters. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description has a heavy burden and only marginally compensates for it.

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 identifies the tool as a shorthand alias for 'recall' scoped to sectionType 'agent'. It names the parent operation and the section parameter, and the 'Deprecated' notice plus the explicit reference to 'recall' distinguishes it from sibling tools. An agent can understand exactly what this tool is and how it relates to the main recall tool.

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?

'Deprecated; removal in 2.0.0' provides explicit guidance not to use this tool in production, and the statement 'Shorthand for recall with sectionType: agent' names the alternative (recall) and the difference (agent scope). This effectively tells the agent when to avoid this tool and what to use instead.

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