fable_recall

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it is a read operation (non-destructive), mentions data is durable and auto-injected at session start. Does not cover auth or rate limits, but sufficient for a read-only recall tool.

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?

Four sentences, no wasted words, but the first sentence is somewhat long. Still efficiently conveys purpose and usage.

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?

No output schema, but description clearly explains what is returned (durable facts, preferences, decisions, constraints) and notes auto-injection. Parameter is fully covered. Complete for a recall tool.

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%, and description adds the meaning of the optional 'project' parameter: 'scope to a project'. Baseline 3 is adjusted upward for the added context.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'durable facts' stored via /remember, with specific examples (preferences, decisions, constraints). Distinguishes from sibling fable_remember which is the write side.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Call to re-check what the user has committed to before assuming.' Implicitly differentiates from fable_remember (write). However, no explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives like fable_context.

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