recall

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It implies a read operation ('check') but also mentions 'integrates variant assignment', which could suggest a write side effect. It does not clarify read-only nature, permissions, or error states. The lack of transparency about potential mutations is a significant gap.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal length for an agent.

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?

Despite 5 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details about output format, pagination, error behavior, and the exact nature of 'variant assignment'. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer, making it incomplete for confident usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for issue_id ('variant assignment') which reinforces the schema. However, it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for plan, match_count, or similarity_threshold. Value added is marginal.

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 states the tool checks institutional memory for scars before action, returning matching scars and lessons. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search' and 'reflect_scars' by its specific purpose of pre-action memory retrieval. However, the verb 'check' is somewhat abstract and the domain term 'scars' may not be universally understood.

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 provides a usage context ('before taking action') and mentions variant assignment when issue_id is provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternative tools like 'reflect_scars' or 'search' for different use cases. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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