Recall: Decisions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial value: it discloses that every result is cited (source_id, msg_id, ts, speaker), defines the `owner` flag by speaker type, and explains status_basis values. It stops short of describing pagination or the overall result envelope, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and sorting order, then provenance semantics, then the safety rule. Efficient, though the parenthetical enumeration of speaker types is packed and slightly heavy for a single clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining the shape and trust level of returned records (citations, owner flag, status/status_basis), which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid misrepresenting a record. It leaves result volume/pagination and project-scoping behaviour unexplained, a minor gap for a read-only list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, status, project and all_projects are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters (no default behaviour, no interaction between project and all_projects). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 resource (decisions, newest-first) and defines it precisely as "the owner's answers to structured questions and audited decisions," which meaningfully separates it from generic recall_search/recall_timeline. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Provides a strong interpretive rule ("Never present an assistant, agent_report or audit record as the owner's decision") but gives no when-to-use routing against alternatives like recall_search, recall_ask or recall_open_questions. Usage is implied by the content semantics rather than by explicit selection guidance.

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