recall_answers

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

Adds value beyond annotations: lists return contents (bounded summaries, matchCount, truncation signal, optional markdown) and clarifies it does not run answer loop. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with key action and filters, then two concise sentences on return and behavior. No wasted words.

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 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, description covers main filtering dimensions but omits project identifiers and limit. Output description is present but could be more detailed. Adequate for a tool with annotations but leaves gaps.

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%, so description must compensate. It mentions filtering by text, query kind, support level, trust state, and ISO time window, but does not explain projectId, projectRef, limit, or output schema. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but description could be more complete.

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?

Description clearly states it searches prior answer traces by multiple filters. Specific verb+resource. Does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'recall_tool_runs' but purpose is clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Only states it does not run answer loop or infer freshness, which implies a read-only use case but lacks direct context.

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