recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context beyond that: it states what will be returned (section text, level, parent, metadata, references, back-references) and explains maxTokens as a payload budget that replaces depth. 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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, then usage instruction, then key parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the important scoping cue is front-loaded.

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 schema covers all parameters, the annotations cover safety, and the description covers invocation, output content, and budget/format choices. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify when to use default recall versus skill-recall/agent-recall, nor which identifier combination is actually required.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning, such as calling it on search-returned kbids and using compact when only content is needed, but it does not substantially deepen what the schema already says about each parameter.

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 names a specific operation ('Expand remembered context', 'Retrieves full content and context') and a specific resource ('sections by identifier'). It also differentiates the tool from search by stating it operates on the kbids search returned, which makes its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit call-time guidance: 'Call it on the kbids search returned' and advises when to use maxTokens and compact format. It stops short of a 5 because it does not mention exclusions or direct the agent to the dedicated skill/agent variants.

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