Recall Reviews

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behaviour, yet the description still adds substantial context: it does not open the artifact, requires no shared filesystem access, and explains that the supplied revision drives per-record stale/current marking. The scoping note that an entity filter is revision-bound while text and tag filters are not is exactly the kind of non-obvious behaviour an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Purpose and required input are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioural fact rather than restating the schema. It is on the dense side at five sentences, but almost nothing is filler.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and it still sketches the record shape (artifact reference, entity IDs, ID scheme). For a six-parameter tool with a nested ArtifactRef, all the information needed to call it correctly and interpret staleness is present.

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 high (83%), which sets the baseline at 3, but the description earns more: it tells the agent to pass the ArtifactRef from Geometry inspect, explains why revision matters for staleness, and clarifies the asymmetric matching semantics of entity_id vs search/tags. Only the limit/offset pagination behaviour is left entirely to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Retrieve saved reviews for a STEP file") and enumerates the three optional filter modes, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling recall_decisions, which an agent could easily confuse with a review-recall tool.

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?

"Use early in a conversation to restore persistent context about a part" gives a clear positive usage context, and it explains the hand-off pattern ("use these together when handing an annotation to another tool"). It offers no explicit exclusions or pointers to remember/forget/recall_decisions as alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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