recall_user_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds detail about output being 'compact source-attributed context with include/drop reason codes', but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The 'recall' verb suggests a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and avoid redundancy. Every clause contributes meaningful detail about what the tool combines and produces.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a general sense of the output format but does not explain how the many optional parameters interact or the precise structure of the returned context. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 13 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters like owner_key or state_keys interact.

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 'recall[s] task-aware user context on demand' and enumerates the combined data sources and output characteristics (source-attributed context with reason codes). This distinguishes it from sibling search/retrieval tools, which are more narrow in scope.

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 only implies usage via 'on demand' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or current_state. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of alternative tools.

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