provenance__recall

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

The description discloses the key behavioral facet: the tool quarantines every transitive descendant, which goes beyond a simple flag. It also notes that it reports which agents were quarantined. Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job of outlining the action and its scope.

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, two sentences, with the key purpose and behavior front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous 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?

Given no output schema, the description does specify that the tool reports which agents were quarantined. However, it lacks detail on parameter semantics and does not mention any side effects or permissions. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps in parameter documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain the 'reason' parameter at all, and only implies 'agent_id' through context. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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's function: 'Recall an agent: flags it and quarantines every transitive descendant.' It also notes the output, 'Reports exactly which agents were quarantined.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like provenance__describe_agent, provenance__list_artifacts, etc.

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 when an agent needs to be recalled, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. No guidance on choosing between recall and other provenance operations.

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