iranti

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 mentions recovering facts 'that have fallen out of Claude context,' which implies retrieval from some external memory system, but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes 'relevant facts.' This leaves significant gaps for a tool that appears to query a knowledge base.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's apparent complexity (retrieving facts based on context and hints) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'facts' look like, how relevance is determined, or the tool's integration with Claude's context, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about behavior and results.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'currentContext' is used to identify lost facts, which is somewhat redundant with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Recover relevant facts that have fallen out of Claude context.' This specifies the verb ('recover') and resource ('relevant facts'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'iranti_history' or 'iranti_search' that might also retrieve information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to sibling tools like 'iranti_query' or 'iranti_search', leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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