skill-recall

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by disclosing the exact sectionType mapping and the pending removal in 2.0.0, which is useful context beyond the structured 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 extremely compact, front-loads the core meaning, and adds a deprecation notice without filler. Every sentence contributes necessary semantic or lifecycle information.

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 deprecated alias tool, some brevity is acceptable, but the five completely undocumented parameters leave too much implicit. Without output schema or parameter details, the description is not self-sufficient; it only works if the agent happens to know the parent recall tool's interface.

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 0%, and the description offers no meaning for kbid, depth, kbids, format, or maxTokens. The agent cannot determine how to construct a valid call from this definition alone, and the tool name gives only a weak hint that these match the recall tool's parameters.

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 defines this tool as a shorthand for recall with sectionType fixed to 'skill', which is a precise resource and scoping statement. It also clearly communicates its deprecated status with a removal version, distinguishing it from plain recall and other skill-* siblings.

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 deprecation notice tells the agent the tool should no longer be preferred, and 'shorthand for recall' identifies the alternative tool. It is clear this exists for backward compatibility, although it does not explicitly say 'use recall instead' or describe when new code should avoid it.

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