Recall: Timeline

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial interpretive context beyond them: citations on every result, the meaning of the `owner` flag, the `status_basis` taxonomy (user/audit/assistant/verify), and an explicit rule not to misrepresent non-owner records as owner decisions. It stops short of 5 only because it says nothing about ordering, size, or pagination of the returned history.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the interpretive detail. Every clause earns its place by defining output semantics, though the parenthetical field list is packed and could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the cited fields (source_id, msg_id, ts, speaker), defines `owner`, and explains `status` and `status_basis` semantics plus a usage caveat. An agent can interpret the response without further 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 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as a record id (rk-…) sourced from other recall tools. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and verb phrase: the append-only history of one record, enumerating the events it captures (created, merged, endorsed, superseded). This implicitly separates it from the current-state siblings like recall_get, but it never names an alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains what the timeline contains but gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives (recall_get for current state, recall_related for links). An agent must infer that this is the provenance/history view rather than being told.

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