recall_log

Does 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 discloses the bounded nature and the fields returned, and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not explain default limits, behavior when empty, or whether limit is enforced as a cap, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every element earns its place: the verb, object, key fields, and the bounded audit log qualifier.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage: it states what is returned (recall entries), the ordering (most recent), and the bounded nature. Minor gap: no mention of default behavior or if the limit parameter is capped, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 schema has one parameter 'limit' with no description (0% coverage). The description uses the word 'bounded' which hints at the limit parameter's role but does not explicitly state that 'limit' controls the maximum number of entries returned. This indirect reference does not fully compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a specific resource 'recall entries' with enumerated fields (query, top result, confidence, timestamp). It distinguishes itself as an audit log, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like 'recall' which likely performs a recall operation.

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 conveys that this is for retrieving a bounded audit log of recent recall entries, providing some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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