tmcra_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results are 'bounded' and 'prompt-ready,' but says nothing about side effects, asynchronous job handling, scoping, or what happens when wait_for_job_id is used. This is under-specified for a tool whose schema includes evidence_mode, scope, and job-waiting parameters.

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 text is a single compact sentence and front-loads the core operation, so it is easy to scan. However, it is so terse that it omits critical operational context; this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the tool has six parameters, an evidence_mode enum, and a wait_for_job_id that implies asynchronous behavior. The description does not explain these or how recall relates to tmcra_ingest, tmcra_turn_prepare, and tmcra_get_job. An agent cannot confidently construct correct arguments beyond query.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the six-parameter schema. It only reinforces that a single 'query' is the basis for recall; scope, agent_id, evidence_mode, wait_for_job_id, and include_structured_evidence receive no explanation. The one meaningful addition is the 'for one query' bound, which is not enough.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Recall ... memory evidence for one query,' which tells an agent this is a retrieval operation over stored memory. 'Bounded' and 'prompt-ready' hint at result shape, and 'for one query' separates it from batch or management siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tmcra_turn_prepare, but the retrieval intent is clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus tmcra_turn_prepare, tmcra_reconcile, or tmcra_get_job. The description implies a recall use case but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from names alone.

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