Recall assertions another session committed about a subject, enabling shared-context awareness across sessions. Provide a sessionId to retrieve relevant committed memory.
Read committed assertions another session left about a subject (shared-context recall).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subject | No | ||
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'reads' committed assertions, implying a non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, behavior on missing data, or any session-related constraints. The description provides only minimal behavioral context.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and context. There is no redundant phrasing or filler; every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.
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 the tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to enable correct invocation. It does not explain the intended usage of subject and sessionId, the format of returned assertions, or any edge cases. The description is incomplete for an agent to safely and correctly use the 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?
The input schema has two optional parameters (subject and sessionId) with no description coverage, and the tool description does not explain their meaning or how they affect behavior. A 0% schema description coverage places the burden on the description, which fails to compensate. An agent would have no idea what to pass for these 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 clearly states the tool reads committed assertions left by another session about a subject, with a parenthetical 'shared-context recall' that hints at its purpose. It is specific about the verb and resource, and the context implies it differs from general query or fetch operations among the siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 description implies usage for recalling shared context from another session, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like noetic.query or noetic.fetch, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions. Some guidance is implicit in the wording, but it falls short of clear decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.