recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exactness guarantee (bytes re-hashed on read, so text is exactly what was removed) and the operating constraint (offline, local stash only). It omits error behavior for a missing, expired, or malformed id, which is a meaningful gap for a lookup 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action before the mechanism and the constraint. Every clause is informative, though the first sentence is dense and jargon-heavy, which slightly reduces scannability.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation retrieval tool, the description covers what is returned and the key constraints, which is enough for correct invocation. Missing error/expiry handling keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the schema already documents 'id' (hex id from the pointer) and 'lines' (1-based range 'a-b'). The description adds only indirect context by referencing 'the pointer', and says nothing about what happens when 'lines' is supplied or whether it truncates output. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action (return a previously removed tool output) and ties it to the exact artifact being reversed, including the placeholder marker 'lcc recall <id>'. It names the sibling compact_transcript and its rules_mode 'stashed', which helps distinguish it from compact/compact_transcript. It stops short of a plain 'retrieve contents stashed by X' framing, but an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 embeds the trigger condition: use this when you encounter '[removed: N tokens · lcc recall <id>]' placeholder text. That is clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like inspect or explain, and gives no exclusions beyond the offline/local-only note.

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